F96.AS 


^' 


Anderson 
Alaskan  Fur  Seals 


THE  LIBRARY 
OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


CANADIAN   QUESTIONS. 


/ 


ALASKAN  FUR  SEALS. 


DIPLOMATIC  NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  THE  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  FUR-SEAL 

QUESTION,  AND  THE  POSITION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND 

FOREIGN  GOVERNMENTS  WITH  RESPECT  TO 

THE  SEALING  INDUSTRY, 

1867-1906. 


REPORT    PREP.    RED    FOR    THE    DEPARTMENT    OF    STATE 
CHANDUER   P.  ANDERSON, 

1806. 


WASHINGTON  i 

GOTCRNMKNT   PRINTING    OfFIOR. 

leoe. 


CANADIAN   QUESTIONS. 


ALASKAN   FUR  SEALS. 


DIPLOMATIC  NEdOTLVTIONS  FOR  THE  SETTLEMENT  (IF  THE  FUR-8EAL 

QUEHTIOiN,  AND  THE  POSITION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND 

FOREION  GOVERNMENTS  WITH  RESPECT  TO 

THE  SEALING  LNDUSTRY, 

1867-1  !)()(>. 


REPORT  PREPARED  l^OR  THE  DEPARTMENT  OE  STATE 

BY  ' 

CHAJ^DLER    P.   ANDERSON, 
ieo6. 


WASlIINOXOIsr  I 

f  JOVKIINMKNT     I'HINTINII     OlTICUC, 
IIXXI, 


TABLE  OF  COMTENTS. 


Part  I. 

Diplontatic  negotiations  for  the  settlement  of  the  Alaskan  fur-seal  question. 

Page. 

Situation  from   1S67-1SS7 3 

Proposed  international  measures — 1887-1S8S 3 

Negotiations  with  Great  Britain — 1889-1892 7 

Paris  Arbitration  Tribunal  award — 1893 12 

Arrangements  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  for  enforcing  the 

award  regulations 13 

Separate  arrangements  with  Japan  and  Russia 15 

Arrangements  with  Japan 16 

Arrangements  with   Russia 17 

Invitations  to  other  powers  to  adhere  to  the  award  regulations — 1894 20 

Proposals  by  the  United  States  for  a  temporary  suspension  of  sealing,  for 
revision  of  the  award  regulations,  and  for  concurrent  action  by  Great 
Britain,  Japan,  and   Russia  extending  the  regulations  to  Asiatic  waters — 

1894-1897 22 

Negotiations  with  Canada — 1897 33 

Proposal  by  the   United  States   for  a  joint   conference  with  Great  Britain, 

Japan,  and  Russia  in  1897 34 

Joint  conference   between   the    United  States,    Japan,    and    Russia,    held   at 

Washington  in  October,  1897 38 

Consideration  of  this  question  by  the  Joint  High  Commission — 1898-99 44 

Diplomatic  negotiations  since  the  adjournment  of  the  Joint  High  Commission 

in    1899 45 

Part  H. 

Position  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  killing  of  seals  on  the  Pribilof 

Islands. 

Mutual  rights  and  liabilities  of  the   United  States  and  the  lessee  under  the 

lease  of  the  sealing  privileges  on  the  Pribilof  Islands 53 

The  lease 53 

Statutory  provisions  authorizing   the  lease 54 

Restrictions  imposed   by  the  Government 55 

Judicial  construction  of  the  lease 55 

Proposals   for  temporarily  suspending    the   killing  of   seals  on    the    Pribilof 

Islands 60 

Proposals  in  Congress  for  settling  the  seal   controversy  by  destroying  the 

seals  on  the  Pribilof  Islands 62 

Report  by  Senate  Committee  on  Territories   recommending  suspension   of 

killing  of  seals  on  the  islands f'5 

III 


876268 


Part  III. 

The  sealing  iiuiustry.  Page. 

Canadian 7i 

Estimated  value  of  vessels  in  1898 7i 

Present  value  of  vessels,  based  on  Canadian  estimates 73 

American  valuation 7S 

Value  of  business 78 

Local  interests  at  Victoria,  British  Columbia 80 

British  interests 84 

American 84 

Pelagic  sealing 84 

Pribilof  Islands 85 

Income  derived  by  the  Government 86 

Diminishing  rentals 88 

Commercial  interests 89 

Japanese 89 

Japanese  seal  rookeries 89 

Robben  Island 90 

Kurile  Islands 90 

Pelagic   sealing 91 

Japanese  sealers  in   Bering  Sea  and  foreigners  sealing  under  Japanese 

flag 95 

Russian 98 

Russian  seal  rookeries 98 

Pelagic  catch loi 

Southern  seas 102 

Historical  review 103 

Present  conditions 103 

Al'TENDlX. 

A.  Complete  list  of  British  Columbia  sealing  vessels,  1898 109 

B.  Captain  Thayer's  report,  "British  Columbia  Scaling  Fleet  for  1S98''  iii 

C.  Canadian  sealing  fleet,  1898-1905 113 

D.  Seal  island  and  pelagic  catch  and  average  price  per  skin,  with  revenue 

to  Government  from  tax  on  seal  skins,  from  1870  to  1905,  inclusive 114 

E.  Statement  showing  number  of  skins  sold  annually  by  Lampson  &  Co.  at 

the  London  sales  and  the  localities  from  which  they  were  taken 115 

F.  Report  on  "Seals  and  Sealing  in  Uruguay  " 116 

G.  Report  on  "  Sealing  at  Falkland  Islands" iiy 

IV 


PART   I. 

•« 

Diplomatic  Negotiations  for  the  Settlement  of  the 
Alaskan  Fur- Seal  Question. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/alaskanfursealsdOOande 


Diplomatic  Negotiations  for  the  Settlement  of  the 
Alaskan  Fnr-Seal  Question. 


THE  SITUATION  FROM   1867-1887. 

By  the  Treaty  of  1867  Russia  ceded  to  the  United  States  all  its 
territory  and  dominion  on  the  continent  of  America  and  in  the 
adjacent  islands  contained  within  certain  geographical  limits,  which 
included  the  Pribilof  Islands  and  the  greater  part  of  Bering  Sea. 

By  an  act  of  Congress  approved  March  3,  1869,  the  Pribilof 
Islands  were  made  a  special  reservation  for  Government  purposes 
and  no  person  was  permitted  to  land  or  remain  on  either  of  them 
except  by  authority  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

On  July  I,  1870,  it  was  further  enacted  by  Congress  that  no  per- 
son should  kill  fur  seal  or  other  fur-bearing  animals  within  the  limits 
of  Alaska  Territory  or  in  the  waters  thereof,  which  later,  by  the  act 
of  March  3,  1889,  were  expressly  declared  to  include  "  all  the  domin- 
ion of  the  United  States  in  the  waters  of  Bering  Sea  within  the 
Russian  cession. " 

This  act  of  July  i,  1870,  further  provided  for  the  leasing  of  exclu- 
sive sealing  privileges  on  these  islands  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  under  certain  conditions  and  restrictions,  and  pursuant  to 
such  provisions  a  lease  was  made  to  the  Alaska  Commercial  Com- 
pany for  twenty  years  from  May  i,  1870,  and,  upon  the  expiration  of 
that  lease,  a  similar  lease  was  made  to  the  North  American  Com- 
mercial Company  for  twenty  years  from  May  i,  1890. 

The  Revised  Statutes  of  1873  reproduced  the  acts  then  in  force 
relating  to  the  fur  seals. 

The  United  States  was  practically  undisturbed  in  its  possession 
and  control  of  the  sealing  fisheries  in  Bering  Sea  until  the  year  1883. 
In  that  year  pelagic  sealing  had  its  beginning,  and  with  pelagic  seal- 
ing the  seal  question  became  an  international  one.  In  1886  the 
seizures  of  Canadian  vessels  engaged  in  pelagic  sealing  in  Bering 
Sea  commenced. 

PROPO.SED  INTERNATIONAL  MEASURES— 1887-1888. 

On  August  19,  1887,  the  United  States  invited  Great  Britain, 
France,  Germany,  Sweden  and  Norway,  Russia,  and  Japan  to  enter 

into  an  arrangement  with  the  United    States   to  protect  the  fur  seals 

3 


in  Bering  Sea.  The  United  States  at  that  time  claimed  exclusive 
property  in  the  seals  and  control  of  the  seal  fisheries  in  Bering  Sea, 
but  in  suggesting  this  arrangement  it  was  stated  that — 

"Without  raising  any  question  as  to  the  exceptional  measures 
which  the  peculiar  character  of  its  property  in  fur  seals  might  justify 
this  Government  in  taking,  and  without  reference  to  an}; exceptional 
marine  jurisdiction  that  might  properly  be  claimed  for  that  end, 
it  is  deemed  advisable  *  *  *  to  attain  the  desired  ends  by  inter- 
national cooperation."     (Foreign  Relations,  1888,  Part  II,  p.  1824.) 

No  response  was  received  from  Germany. 

Sweden  and  Norway  responded  (March  20,  1888;  id.^  p.  1856) 
that,  having  no  interest  in  seal  fisheries,  there  was  no  need  for  that 
Government  to  take  part  in  any  treaty  or  arrangement  in  reference 
thereto.  The  desire  was  expressed,  however,  that  an  accord  might 
be  arrived  at  between  the  interested  powers,  and  that  powers  not  at 
present  interested  might  be  permitted  to  join  such  an  arrangement 
in  the  future  if  they  desired. 

France  responded  (October  21,  1887;  id.^  p.  1825)  that  the  indus- 
try in  question  was  not  engaged  in  by  French  shipowners  up  to  that 
time,  but  that  the  Government  was  willing  to  confer,  for  the  pur- 
poses proposed,  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  to 
examine  anj^  draft  of  an  international  convention  which  might  be 
communicated  to  it. 

Subsequently,  on  February  7,  1888  (zV/.,  p.  1825)  the  United  States 
ministers  to  France,  Germany,  Russia,  and  Sweden  and  Norway 
were  informed  by  the  Secretary  of  State  that  Lord  Salisbury  had 
acquiesced  in  a  proposal  for  an  agreement  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  in  regard  to  the  adoption  of  concurrent  regula- 
tions for  the  preservation  of  the  Bering  Sea  seals,  and  a  statement 
describing  the  conditions  of  seal  life  as  a  preliminary  to  submit- 
ting a  scheme  of  regulations  was  inclosed  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Governments  above  named. 

No  further  action  in  the  matter  seems  to  have  been  taken  by 
either  of  these  Governments  except  Russia.  The  negotiations  with 
Russia  and  Japan  are  reviewed  separately  below. 

The  response  from  Russia  (November  25,  1887;  /^. ,  p.  1855) 
stated  that  the  Russian  Government  concurred  entirely  in  the  views 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States;  that  its  own  pressing 
interests  in  the  matter  had  already  suggested  to  it  the  idea  of  an 
international  agreement,  and  that  the  proposition  met  the  sincere 
sympathies  of  that  Government  and  would  receive  its  active  sup- 
port. The  Russian  ambassador  at  London  thereafter  undertook 
negotiations  on  this  subject  with  the  British  Government  and  the 
United  States  minister  there.  It  appeared  in  these  negotiations, 
which  are  outlined  below  in  connection  with  the  British  negotiations, 


that  the  Russian  Government  wished  to  have  any  regulations  agreed 
upon  for  Bering  Sea  extended  so  as  to  include  the  Commander 
Islands  and  also  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk. 

The  response  of  Japan  (October  8,  1887;  /V/. ,  p.  1847)  stated  that 
the  Japanese  Government  cordially  approved  of  the  suggestion,  but 
that  they  would  wish  to  protect  the  sea  otter  and  fur  seals  on  the 
coasts  of  Japan  as  well,  and  therefore  desired  to  extend  the  princi- 
ple of  protection  to  their  own  waters.  Subsequently,  on  being 
advised  that  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  and  Russia  and 
Great  Britain  were  discussing  the  question  at  London,  it  was  sug- 
gested by  the  Japanese  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  {id.,  p.  1852) 
that  if  the  negotiations  there  had  assumed  the  character  of  an  in- 
ternational convention  in  which  the  views  of  the  several  powers 
interested  might  be  formally  interchanged,  the  Imperial  Govern- 
ment would  desire  to  instruct  their  representative  at  London  to  take 
part  in  such  negotiations.  It  further  appeared  {id.,  p.  1849)  that 
the  Russian  Government  desired  to  conclude  directly  with  Japan  a 
convention  for  the  mutual  protection  of  the  seal  and  otter  within 
their  own  seas  and  contiguous  waters.  This  suggestion  from  Japan 
for  a  joint  negotiation  at  London  was  not  carried  out,  as  the  United 
States  had  thought  it  desirable  {id.,  p.  1852)  to  first  settle  in  defi- 
nite form  the  arrangements  with  Great  Britain  and  Russia,  and 
the  British  Government  had  at  this  time — July,  1888 — met  with 
obstructions  from  Canada,  so  that  it  did  not  appear  that  participa- 
tion by  Japan  in  the  negotiations  would  promote  their  successful 
conclusion. 

For  Great  Britain,  Lord  Salisbury,  as  reported  by  the  United 
States  minister  (November  12,  1887;  id.,  p.  1827),  promptly  acqui- 
esced in  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  United  States  and  requested 
a  sketch  of  a  system  of  regulations  considered  adequate  for  the  pur- 
pose. In  respose  to  this  request  it  was  suggested  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  (February  7,  1888;  id.,  p.  1829): 

"The  only  way  of  obviating  the  lamentable  result  above  pre- 
dicted appears  to  be  by  the  United  States,  Great  Britain,  and  other 
interested  powers  taking  concerted  action  to  prevent  their  citizens 
or  subjects  from  killing  fur  seals  with  firearms,  or  other  destructive 
weapons,  north  of  50°  of  north  latitude,  and  between  160°  of  longi- 
tude west  and  170°  of  longitude  east  from  Greenwich,  during  the 
period  intervening  between  April  15  and  November  i." 

Mr.  Phelps  reported  to  Mr.  Bayard  (February  25,  1888)  that 
Lord  Salisbury  had  assented  to  the  United  States  proposition — 

"to  establish,  by  mutual  arrangement  between  the  Governments 
interested,  a  close  time  for  fur  seals  between  April  15  and  Novem- 
ber 1,  and  between  160°  of  longitude  west  and  170°  of  longitude  east, 
in  the  Bering  Sea."      {Id.,  p.   1837.) 


He  also  reported  that  Lord  Salisbury  would  join  in  any  pre- 
ventive measures  it  might  be  thought  best  to  adopt. 

Subsequently,  in  April,  1888,  the  American  minister  and  the 
Russian  ambassador  at  London  met  Lord  Salisbury  at  the  Foreign 
Office  to  carr}'  on  the  negotiations  jointly.  The  conference  was 
called  at  the  request  of  the  Russian  ambassador,  who  desired  that 
England  should  recognize  Russian  rights  in  Bering  Sea  as  fully  as 
American  rights  had  been  recognized  in  the  verbal  agreement  (zV. , 
p.  1837,  quoted  above)  arrived  at  on  February  25,  1888,  between 
Lord  Salisbury  and  Mr.  Phelps  (Foreign  Relations,  1890,  p.  453), 
and  he  suggested  that  the  proposed  regulations  be  extended  to 
include  that  portion  of  Bering  Sea  in  which  the  Commander  Islands 
are  situated,  and  also  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk,  where  Robben  Island 
lies.      (Foreign  Relations,  1888,  Part  II,  p.  1840.) 

The  American  minister  and  Lord  Salisbury  both  acquiesced  in 
this  suggestion. 

The  Russian  ambassador  further  urged  the  prohibition  of  the 
importation  or  sale  in  the  protected  area  of  alcoholic  drinks,  fire- 
arms, gunpowder,  and  d3-namite.  Lord  Salisbury  expressed  no 
opinion  on  this  proposition.  On  the  question  of  the  duration  of 
the  closed  season  he  suggested  that  the  period  from  April  15  to 
November  i  might  be  unnecessarily  long,  and  suggested  that  it  termi- 
nate October  i  instead  of  a  month  later,  and  he  promised  to  have 
prepared  a  draft  convention  for  submission  to  the  Russian  ambas- 
sador and  the  American  minister.  (/^/.,  p.  1840.)  He  also  sug- 
gested that  it  might  be  necessary  to  bring  other  governments  into  the 
arrangement,  which  suggestion  had  already  been  met  by  the  invita- 
tions sent  out  by  the  United  States,  and  it  was  agreed  that  any  con- 
vention between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  and  Russia 
should  contain  a  clause  providing  for  the  subsequent  adhesion  of 
other  powers.  (/^/.,  p.  1841.)  Subsequently  (June  20,  1888;  id.^  p. 
1842),  it  was  reported  that  Lord  Salisbury  had  decided  to  await  in- 
formation from  Canada  before  proceeding  further  with  the  conven- 
tion, and  later  (July,  1888)  it  appeared  that  his  views  had  met  with 
obstruction  from  Canada  (zV/. ,   p.   1853). 

The  course  of  the  negotiations  up  to  this  point  is  reviewed  by 
Mr.  Blaine  in  his  letter  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote,  dated  May  29, 
1890,  and  it  is  there  stated  that  after  the  negotiations  were  thus  sus- 
pended in  June,  1888,  the  matter  was  repeatedly  called  to  the  atten- 
tion of  Lord  Salisbury,  and  his  answer  was  that  in  view  of  the 
Canadian  objection  to  the  proposed  restrictions  the  British  Govern- 
ment was  unwilling  to  enter  into  the  convention  without  Canadian 
consent.      (Foreign  Relations,  1890,  p.  427.) 

It  is  interesting  to  note  as  a  side  light  on  these  negotiations  that 


the  "obstruction  from  Canada"  which  unexpectedly  arose  and  de- 
feated the  settlement  then  in  prospect  followed  almost  immediately 
after  the  report  from  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  was 
made  on  May  7,  1888,  adverse  to  the  ratification  of  the  Bayard- 
Chamberlain  fisheries  treaty. 

While  these  negotiations  were  in  progress  Canadian  pelagic  seal- 
ing in  Bering  Sea  was  not  interfered  with  by  the  United  States. 
The  British  minister  at  Washington,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Bayard 
(April  2,  1888;  Fur  Seal  Arbitration,  Vol.  II,  Appendix,  p.  177), 
called  attention  to  the  extreme  importance,  for  the  success  of  the 
negotiations,  that  he  be  able  to  inform  Canada  that  no  seizures 
would  be  made  during  the  season  of  1888.  No  answer  to  this  note 
appears  in  the  published  correspondence,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact 
during  the  season  of  1888  no  seizures  of  foreign  vessels  were  made 
in  Bering  Sea. 

After  the  negotiations  proved  fruitless  Mr.  Phelps  wrote  to  Mr. 
Ba3^ard  (September  12,  1888;  id.,  p.  181)  that  unless  the  United 
States  Government  was  prepared  to  submit  to  have  the  seal  fisheries 
destroyed  it  must  take  measures  to  prevent  their  destruction  by 
capturing  vessels  employed  in  pelagic  sealing.  In  a  review  of  the 
legal  aspect  of  the  question  he  reaches  the  conclusion  that  although 
the  United  States  control  does  not  rest  on  the  right  of  mare  claitsiim, 
which  he  does  not  conceive  to  be  applicable  to  the  case,  yet  for  other 
sufficient  reasons  the  pelagic  sealing  as  carried  on  by  the  Canadians 
is  "unjustifiable  and  illegitimate."     He  recommends,  therefore — 

"that  the  vessels  that  have  been  already  seized  while  engaged  in  this 
business  be  firmly  held,  and  that  measures  be  taken  to  capture  and 
hold  every  one  hereafter  found  concerned  in  it." 

By  an  act  of  Congress  approved  March  2,  1889,  it  was  declared 
that  section  1956,  Revised  Statutes,  prohibiting  the  killing  of  fur 
seals  and  other  fur-bearing  animals  "within  the  limits  of  Alaska 
Territory,"  applied  to  all  the  dominion  of  the  United  States  in  the 
waters  of  Bering  Sea,  and  the  President  was  required  to  cause  the 
arrest  of  all  persons  and  the  seizure  of  all  vessels  violating  the  pro- 
visions of  that  section.  Pursuant  to  such  enactment  the  seizure  of 
Canadian  vessels  for  pelagic  sealing  in  Bering  Sea  was  resumed  in 
the  season  of  1889  ^md  continued  until  1891,  when  the  viodus  vidcndi 
of  that  year  went  into  effect,  temporarily  suspending  pelagic  sealing. 

NEGOTIATIONS  WITH   GREAT   BRITAIN— 1889-1892. 

In  1889,  after  the  change  of  Administration  at  Washington,  Mr. 
Blaine,  then  Secretary  of  State,  was  informed  that  it  would  be  agree- 
able to  Great  Britain  to  discuss  the  whole  question.      At  the  outset, 


owing  to  the  renewal  of  seizures  in  the  summer  of  1889,  the  discus- 
sion dealt  chiefiy  with  the  jurisdictional  rights  of  the  United  States 
in  Bering  Sea,  which  were  subsequently  settled  by  the  Fur  Seal 
Arbitration  Tribunal  at  Paris  in  1893  and  need  not  be  considered 
here. 

Concurrently  with  this  discussion,  however,  the  negotiations  for 
a  settlement  were  resumed,  and  on  February  10,  1890  (Foreign 
Relations,  1890,  p.  370),  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  wrote  to  Mr.  Blaine 
suggesting  that  if  agreeable  his  Government  would  take  steps  con- 
currently with  the  United  States  to  invite  the  participation  of  Rus- 
sia in  the  renewed  negotiations.  No  answer  to  this  suggestion  of 
Russia's  participation  in  the  negotiations  appears  in  the  published 
correspondence.  No  such  invitation  was  extended,  however,  for 
the  reason,  among  others,  that  Mr.  Blaine  had,  as  expressed  in  the 
course  of  the  negotiations,  serious  doubts  if  any  arrangement  could  be 
arrived  at  which  would  be  satisfactory  to  Canada,  and  he  therefore 
had  invited  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  to  first  make  a  counter-proposition 
on  behalf  of  the  Canadians. 

On  April  30,  1890,  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  wrote  stating  that  he 
had  undertaken  this  task.  (/^.,  p.  410.)  He  assumed  at  the  outset 
that  the  sole  object  of  the  negotiation — 

"is  the  preservation  of  the  fur-seal  species  for  the  benefit  of  man- 
kind, and  that  no  considerations  of  advantage  to  any  particular 
nation  or  of  benefit  to  any  private  interests  should  enter  into  the 
question." 

The  difficulty  in  arriving  at  a  solution  was,  as  it  secerned  to  him,  the 
divergence  of  views  as  to  whether  any  restrictions  on  pelagic  sealing 
were  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  fur-seal  species,  and  in 
order  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion  which  would  satisfy  public  opinion 
in  either  country  or  in  any  other  country  which  might  be  invited  to 
adhere  to  the  arrangement  a  full  inquiry  of  a  mixed  commission  of 
experts  should  be  had.  With  this  in  view  he  was  prepared  to  recom- 
mend the  acceptance  of  certain  measures  provisionally,  pending  the 
report  of  such  a  commission.      These  provisional  measures  were: 

"i.  That  pelagic  sealing  should  be  prohibited  in  the  Bering  Sea, 
the  Sea  of  Okhotsk,  and  the  adjoining  waters,  during  the  months  of 
May  and  June,  and  during  the  months  of  October,  November,  and 
December,  which  may  be  termed  the  migration  periods  of  the  fur 
seals. 

"2.  That  all  sealing  vessels  should  be  prohibited  from  approach- 
ing the  breeding  islands  within  a  radius  of  10  miles." 

He  submitted  drafts  of  a  preliminary  convention  providing  if  or  a 
full  examination  and  contemplating  the  conclusion  of  a  further  con- 
vention  after  the  report  of  the   proposed   mixed   commission,   and 


providing  for  the  ultimate  settlement  by  arbitration  of  any  differ- 
ences which  the  commission  failed  to  adjust,  and  providing  further 
that  other  powers  should  be  invited  to  accede  to  the  convention. 
{Id.,  pp.  410-412.) 

On  May  29,  1890,  Mr.  Blaine  answered,  reviewing  the  course  of 
the  negotiations  at  length  and  stating  that  he  was  instructed  by  the 
President  to  say  that — 

"while  your  proposals  of  April  30  can  not  be  accepted,  the  United 
States  will  continue  negotiation  in  hope  of  reaching  an  agreement 
that  may  conduce  to  a  good  understanding."     {Id.,  p.  429.) 

On  June  2  of  the  same  year  Mr.  Blaine  again  wrote  to  Sir  Julian 
Pauncefote,  stating  that  it  was  evident  that  an  arbitration  could  not 
be  concluded  in  time  for  the  coming  season  and  that  the  President 
anxiously  desired  to  know  whether  Lord  Salisbury — 

"in  order  to  promote  a  friendly  solution  of  the  question,  will  make 
for  a  single  season  the  regulation  which  in  1888  he  offered  to  make 
permanent."     {Id.,  p.  429.) 

On  the  following  day  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  replied  that — 

"the  further  examination  of  the  question  which  has  taken  place 
has  satisfied  his  lordship  that  such  an  extreme  measure  as  that  pro- 
posed in  1888  goes  far  beyond  the  requirements  of  the  case" — 

And  accordingly  that  Great  Britain  was  not  prepared  to  agree  to 
the  regulation  proposed.      {Id.,  p.  430.) 

On  June  27,  1890,  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  wrote  to  Mr.  Blaine  that 
under  instructions  from  his  Government  ii;  was  indispensable,  before 
the  proclamation  suspending  sealing  for  the  season  could  be  issued — 

"that  the  two  Governments  agree  forthwith  to  refer  to  arbitration 
the  question  of  the  legality  of  the  action  of  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment in  seizing  or  otherwise  interfering  with  British  vessels 
engaged  in  the  Bering  Sea,  outside  of  territorial  waters,  during  the 
years  1886,  1887,  and  1889."     {Id.,  p.  436.) 

On  July  2,  1890,  Mr.  Blaine  responded  to  this  proposition  that 
an  agreement  to  arbitrate  requires  careful  consideration,  and  that  the 
United  States  could  not  consent  that  the  form  in  which  the  arbitra- 
tion shall  be  undertaken  shall  be  decided  without  full  consultation 
and  conference,  an  opportunity  for  which  was  not  given  by  Lord 
Salisbury's  proposal  that  the  United  States  should  forthwith  accept 
a  ff^rmal  arbitration  as  a  condition  of  issuing  the  proclamation. 
{Id.,   \).    452.)      The   negotiations   were   not   carried    further  at   that 


lO 

time^  but  the  discussion  on  the  question  of  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  control  the  Bering  Sea  seal  fishery  was  continued  at  length 
by  Mr.  Blaine  and  Lord  Salisbury.  {Id.,  pp.  456-508;  Foreign  Re- 
lations, 1891,  pp.  542-552.) 

The  proposition  for  a  settlement  of  the  question  by  arbitration 
was  kept  in  view  during  this  discussion,  and  in  March,  1891,  Mr. 
Blaine  proposed  that  a  modus  vivendi  be  agreed  upon  pending  the 
result  of  arbitration.  This  suggestion  was  approved  by  Lord  Salis- 
bury. (A/.,  p.  552.)  Lord  Salisbury  at  first  was  inclined  to  insist 
that  seal  killing  be  suspended  on  the  land  as  well  as  on  the  sea. 
Mr.  Blaine  pointed  out,  however,  that  under  the  lease  to  the  North 
American  Commercial  Company,  then  recently  executed,  the  lessees 
were  bound  to  feed  and  care  for  the  natives  at  their  own  expense 
and  to  incur  other  expenses  which  could  not  be  met  unless  the  kill- 
ing of  a  substantial  number  of  seals  was  permitted,  and  that  over 
300  people  on  the  islands  were  dependent  upon  such  support.  He 
therefore  proposed  that  the  number  of  seals  to  be  killed  on  the 
islands  for  the  purposes  just  described  be  limited  to  7,500  annually, 
and  that  killing  in  the  sea  by  either  British  or  American  subjects 
be  absolutely  prohibited,  such  prohibition  to  continue  until  May  i, 
1892,  within  which  time  it  was  anticipated  that  the  arbitrators  would 
render  the  final  award.      (/(/.,  pp.  553-555-) 

On  June  3,  1891,  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  proposed  a  modus  vivendi 
practically  in  the  form  suggested  by  the  United  States,  providing, 
however,  that  "unless  the  assent  of  Russia  be  obtained  to  this 
convention  it  shall  not  go  into  operation,"  and  suggesting  the  ap- 
pointment of  consuls  on  the  Pribilof  Islands.  The  United  States 
questioned  the  pertinency  of  this  last  suggestion,  and  also  requested 
that  Great  Britain  waive  the  suggestion  of  Russia's  participation  in 
the  agreement.  The  objection  to  this  suggestion  was  stated  to  be 
that  Russia  had  never  since  the  treaty  of  cession  in  1867  asserted 
any  rights  in  these  waters  affecting  the  subject-matter  of  these  nego- 
tiations, and  therefore  could  not  be  a  proper  party  to  them  unless 
they  were  improperly  expanded.  (/(/.,  p.  560.)  On  these  points 
Great  Britain  acceded  to  the  wishes  of  the  United  States,  and  after 
active  discussion  on  various  features  of  the  question  the  modus 
vivendi  oi  ]\xx\&  15,  1891,  was  signed  and  proclaimed  by  the  Presi- 
dent on  the  same  day.      {Id.,  p.  570.) 

Under  this  modus  vivendi  both  Governments  agreed  to  prohibit 
until  the  following  May  pelagic  sealing  in  the  waters  of  Bering 
Sea  included  within  the  boundaries  of  the  cession  from  Russia  in 
the  Treaty  of  1867,  and  on  the  islands  the  number  of  seals  to  be 
killed  within  the  same  period  was  to  be  limited  by  the  United  States 
to  7,500. 


II 

The  negotiations  for  the  submission  of  the  main  questions  to 
arbitration  were  continued  throughout  the  following  summer,  and 
after  a  substantial  agreement  had  been  arrived  at  the  matter  was 
unexpectedly  delayed  by  the  suggestion  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain 
that  any  regulations  to  be  adopted  by  the  arbitrators  should  not 
become  obligatory  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  until  they  had  been  accepted  by  the  other  maritime  powers. 
On  this  proposition  Mr.  Blaine,  in  a  letter  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote 
(November  27,  1891),  raised  the  objection  that — 

"It  would  require  a  long  time — three  years,  at  least — to  get  the 
assent  of  all  these  powers.  Mr.  Bayard,  on  the  19th  of  August, 
1887,  addressed  Great  Britain,  Germany,  France,  Russia,  Sweden 
and  Norway,  and  Japan  with  a  view  to  securing  some  regulations  in 
regard  to  the  seals  in  Bering  Sea.  France,  Japan,  and  Russia  replied 
with  languid  indifference.  Great  Britain  never  replied  in  writing. 
Germany  did  not  reply  at  all.  Sweden  and  Norway  said  the  matter 
was  of  no  interest  to  them.  Thus  it  will  be  again.  Such  a  propo- 
sition will  postpone  the  matter  indefinitely."      {Id.,  p.  599.) 

Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  replied  (December  i,  1891)  that  the  object 
in  view  was  to  prevent  the  fur-seal  fisheries  in  Bering  Sea  from 
being  placed  at  the  mercy  of  some  third  power.  His  objection  is 
stated  as  follows : 

"There  is  nothing  to  prevent  such  third  power  (Russia,  for 
instance,  as  the  most  neighboring  nation),  if  unpledged,  from  step- 
ping in  and  securing  the  fishery  at  the  very  seasons  and  in  the  very 
places  which  may  be  closed  to  the  sealers  of  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States  by  the  regulations. 

"Great  circumspection  is  called  for  in  this  direction,  as  British 
and  American  sealers  might  recover  their  freedom  and  evade  all 
regulations  by  simply  hoisting  a  flag  of  a  nonadhering  power."  {Id., 
p.  600.) 

Mr.  Blaine  replied  on  the  following  day  that  the  United  States 
Government  did  not  apprehend  the  danger  suggested.  He  pointed 
out  that  the  dispute  had  been  in  progress  for  more  than  five  years, 
during  all  which  time  Great  Britain  had  maintained  that  Bering  Sea 
was  open  to  all  comers;  that  a  German  vessel  had  once  made  its 
appearance  in  Bering  Sea  but  had  not  returned,  owing  to  the  great 
distance;  that  Russia,  whose  interference  seemed  to  be  specially 
apprehended,  should  not  be  expected  to  dissent  from  the  agreement 
because  such  dissent  would  hazard  her  own  sealing  property  in  Ber- 
ing Sea,  and  that  on  the  contrary  Russia  might  be  expected  to 
strengthen  and  sustain  any  agreement  arrived  at.  He  suggested 
that  upon  the  termination  of  the  arbitration  the  two  nations  should 
unite  in  a  note  to  the  principal  powers  of  Europe,  explaining  to  them 
fully  what  had  been  done  and  asking  their  approval.  He  thought 
that  with  such  full  explanation  no  attempt  would  be  made  to  disturb 


12 

the  agreement.  If,  however,  there  should  be  any  interference  by  a 
third  power  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  could  act  conjointly 
and  agree  upon  what  measures  might  be  necessary  to  prevent  the 
destruction  of  the  seals.      (Z^^-,  pp.  601-602.) 

In  response  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  explained  (December  8,  1891; 
id.^  p.  601)  that  Lord  Salisbury's  fear  was  not  that  the  other  powers 
would  reject  the  regulations,  but  that  they  would  refuse  to  allow 
the  arrest  by  British  and  American  cruisers  of  vessels  sailing  under 
the  flags  of  such  other  powers  which  may  be  engaged  in  the  fur-seal 
fishery  in  violation  of  the  regulations.      He  added: 

"Such  refusal  is  highly  probable  in  view  of  the  jealousy  which 
exists  as  to  the  right  of  search  on  the  high  seas,  and  the  consequence 
must  inevitably  be  that  during  the  close  season  sealing  will  go  on 
under  other  flags." 

Mr.  Blaine's  answer,  sent  two  days  later  {id.^  p.  602),  took  the 
ground  that  the  fact  that  France  and  Germany  had  never  engaged 
in  sealing  afforded  a  strong  presumption  that  they  would  not  engage 
in  it  in  the  future;  moreover,  that  the  distance  from  France  or 
Germany  to  Bering  Sea  by  the  sailing  lines  is  nearly  20,000  miles, 
and  to  make  such  a  voyage  it  would  be  necessary  to  use  a  larger 
ship  than  could  profitably  be  employed  in  sealing;  the  time  con- 
sumed would  be  exceedingly  long  and  the  voyage  unusually  haz- 
ardous, and  when  such  a  vessel  reached  the  fishing  grounds  there 
would  be  no  territory  there  to  which  it  could  resort  for  any  purpose. 
As  to  the  other  European  countries,  he  argued  that  they  had  the 
same  disabilities;  that  Russia  should  be  regarded  as  an  ally  and  not 
as  an  enemy,  for  the  reasons  stated  earlier  in  the  correspondence; 
and  as  to  the  American  countries,  he  did  not  regard  it  probable  that 
any  one  of  them  would  lend  its  flag  to  vessels  engaged  in  violating 
the  Bering  Sea  regulations.  He  considered  it  absolutely  useless  to 
attempt  to  get  foreign  countries  to  agree  that  their  ships  might  be 
searched  by  American  or  Britisli  cruisers  in  Bering  Sea. 

On  February  29,  1892,  the  arbitration  agreement  was  finally 
signed.      {Id.,  pp.  615-619.) 

On  April  18,  1892,  a  convention  was  entered  into  for  the  renewal 
of  the  existing  modus  vivendi,  to  continue  during  the  pendency  of  the 
arbitration.      {Id.,  pp.  635-637.) 


THE    PARIS    ARBITRATION    TRIBUNAL   AWARD. 

On  August  15,  1893,  the  Arbitration  Tribunal  rendered  its  deci- 
sion and  determined  that  the  United  States  had  no  "right  of  pro- 
tection or  property  in  the  fur  seals  frequenting  the  islands  of  the 
United  States  in  Bering  Sea,  when  such  seals  are  found  outside  the 


ordinary  three-mile  limit."  (Foreign  Relations,  1894,  Appendix  I, 
p.  112.) 

In  consequence  of  such  decision  the  arbitrators  adopted,  pursu- 
ant to  the  requirements  of  the  treaty,  a  set  of  "concurrent  regulations 
outside  of  the  jurisdictional  limits  of  the  respective  Governments," 
establishing  a  protected  zone  of  60  miles  around  the  Pribilof  Islands, 
providing  for  a  closed  season  during  the  months  of  May,  June,  and 
July,  restricting  sealing  to  sailing  vessels,  and  prohibiting  the  tise 
of  firearms.  These  regulations  affected  only  the  citizens  and  sub- 
jects respectively  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  and  applied 
only  to  that  part  of  Bering  Sea  north  of  the  35th  degree  of  north 
latitude  and  eastward  of  the  i8oth  degree  of  longitude  and  the  west- 
ern water  boundary  of  the  Russian  cession  in  the  Treaty  of  1867. 

It  appears  from  the  protocols  (Protocol  LIV)  of  the  Paris  Tribu- 
nal that  the  preparation  of  these  regulations  was  intrusted  to  the 
three  neutral  arbitrators,  and  that  as  originally  proposed  by  them 
the  regulations  were  to  apply  to  all  the  waters  of  the  Pacific  Ocean 
and  Bering  Sea  north  of  the  35th  degree  of  north  latitude,  thereby 
including  the  Russian  and  Japanese  seal  islands.  On  the  part  of 
Great  Britain  Lord  Hannen  objected  to  such  extension  on  the  ground 
that  Russia  and  Japan  would  benefit  gratuitously  by  such  prohibi- 
tion against  sealing  in  their  waters  imposed  upon  the  British  and 
American  sealers.  The  president  of  the  tribunal  stated  on  bqhalf  of 
the  neutral  arbitrators  that  in  thus  framing  the  recommendations 
they  had  acted  out  of  regard  for  Russia  and  Japan,  who  were  not 
represented  on  the  tribunal  and  toward  whose  waters  it  did  not 
seem  equitable  to  drive  back  English  and  American  pelagic  sealers 
during  the  close  season.  Nevertheless,  he  acquiesced  in  Lord  Han- 
nen's  objection,  as  he  did  not  wish  to  prejudice  the  positions  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  in  the  negotiations  which  these 
two  Governments  might  ultimately  engage  in  with  Russia  and  Japan. 
The  article  was  unanimously  agreed  to  in  the  form  above  stated. 


ARRANGEMENTS     BETWEEN    THE    UNITED    STATES   AND    GREAT 
BRITAIN  FOR  ENFORCING  THE  REGULATIONS. 

In  the  arbitration  treaty  of  February  29,  1892,  it  was  provided 
by  Article  VII  that  the  high  contracting  parties  should  cooperate  in 
securing  the  adhesion  of  other  powers  to  the  regulations. 

It  was  found  upon  inquiry  in  several  directions  that  the  other 
powers  would  have  to  be  informed  of  the  manner  in  which  the  regula- 
tions were  to  be  enforced  before  they  could  be  expected  to  give  their 


14 

adhesion  to  them.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  first  to  determine 
upon  the  means  and  adopt  the  measures  for  putting  the  regulations 
into  effect.  This  was  not  accomplished  until  after  the  beginning  of 
the  period  within  which  sealing  was  prohibited  under  the  award, 
which  extended  through  May,  June,  and  July.  The  responsibility 
for  this  delay  seems  to  rest  chiefly  upon  Great  Britain. 

Immediately  upon  the  decision  of  the  Paris  Tribunal  the  United 
States  urged  upon  Great  Britain  the  necessity  for  prompt  action, 
and  Mr.  Bayard,  the  American  ambassador  at  London,  was  instructed 
to  press  the  matter.  It  soon  appeared  that  the  British  Government 
would  prefer  to  conduct  the  negotiations  through  Sir  Julian  Paunce- 
fote,  the  British  ambassador  at  Washington  (Foreign  Relations, 
1894,  Appendix  I,  pp.  119,  133),  and  the  United  States  was  asked 
to  admit  a  Canadian  as  a  joint  negotiator  {id.,  p.  140),  which  was 
not  acceptable.  Under  these  circumstances  the  progress  of  the 
negotiations  at  London  was  exceedingly  slow,  and  finally,  upon  the 
express  assurance  that  the  negotiations  would  be  conducted  with 
"greater  expedition  "  at  Washington,  the  United  States,  on  December 
5,  1893,  consented  to  have  them  transferred  there.     {Id.,  p.  136,  149.) 

A  further  delay  was  occasioned  by  a  difference  which  arose  as 
to  the  steps  to  be  taken  to  make  the  regulations  effective.  For  a 
month  and  a  half  after  the  negotiations  were  transferred  to  Washing- 
ton no  definite  communication  in  regard  to  them  was  received  from 
Great  Britain,  and  on  January  24,  1894,  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, "with  a  view  to  facilitate  negotiations,"  proposed  a  draft  con- 
vention embodying  the  regulations  for  the  purpose  of  rendering 
them  operative.  {Id.,  p.  142.)  On  the  2d  of  March  following  Great 
Britain  responded  that  a  convention  did  not  seem  advisable  {id., 
p.  152)  and  insisted  that  concurrent  legislation  was  the  proper 
method  of  enforcing  the  regulations.      {Id.,  p.  153.) 

The  President  was  of  the  opinion  that  a  convention  was  neces- 
sary, and,  as  the  sealing  season  was  almost  at  hand,  in  order  that  the 
obligation  of  the  award  might  be  observed,  suggested  the  renewal 
for  another  year  of  the  modus  vivendi  of  1892,  so  enlarged  as  to  pro- 
tect all  the  waters  embraced  in  the  regulations,  pending  the  negotia- 
tions. This  was  refused  by  Great  Britain,  either  in  the  form  proposed 
or  so  modified  as  to  conform  exactly  to  the  terms  of  the  regulations. 
{Id.,  p.  153.)  Finally,  all  efforts  in  other  directions  proving  fruit- 
less, the  United  States  determined  to  put  into  effect  so  much  of  the 
regulations  as  could  be  made  effective  by  independent  legislation 
without  waiting  for  cooperation  by  Great  Britain,  and  on  April  5, 
1894,  a  bill  containing  the  provisions  of  the  award  was  passed  by 
Congress  and  approved  the  same  day.  {Id.,  p.  165.)  On  the  i8th 
of  the  same  month  Parliament  passed  a  somewhat  similar  bill,  which 


15 

originally  was  designed  to  exempt  from  its  operation  for  that  season 
the  Canadian  sealers  who  had  already  started  for  Bering  Sea,  but 
after  serious  objection  by  the  United  States  to  this  exemption  an 
official  interpretation  by  the  British  Government  was  announced 
which  eliminated  this  feature  of  the  bill.  (/^/.,  pp.  167,  173,  175.) 
The  order  in  council  carrying  this  act  into  effect  was  not  made  until 
July,  1S94. 

The  United  States  Government  charged  that  neither  the  letter 
nor  the  spirit  of  the  regulations  was  observed  in  this  or  in  subse- 
quent legislation  and  orders  in  council  putting  the  regulations  into 
effect,  and  an  active  correspondence  on  the  subject  was  carried  on 
between  the  two  Governments  during  the  two  following  years. 


SEPARATE  ARRANGEMENTS  WITH  JAPAN  AND  RUSSIA. 

The  regulations  having  thus  been  put  into  effect,  the  time  had 
arrived  for  inviting  the  adherence  of  the  other  powers.  But  before 
taking  up  for  consideration  the  concurrent  action  of  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  in  that  direction  it  is  necessary  to  review  some 
separate  arrangements  made  with  Japan  and  Russia. 

Soon  after  the  award  of  the  Paris  Tribunal  Mr.  Gresham,  then 
Secretary  of  State,  expressed  the  fear  that,  whatever  was  done  in  the 
way  of  enforcing  the  regulations,  Canadians  and  perhaps  Americans 
would  transfer  the  ownership  of  their  sealing  vessels  to  citizens  or 
subjects  of  other  powers,  thus  avoiding  the  effect  of  the  regulations. 
(Foreign  Relations,  1894,  Appendix  I,  p.  108.)  Soon  afterwards  it 
was  reported  from  British  Columbia  that  many  of  the  Canadian  ves- 
sels were  going  to  Japan  the  following  season  and  were  likely  to 
transfer  their  allegiance  to  the  Japanese  flag.      {Id.,  p.  130.) 

The  same  question  was  discussed  by  Mr.  Bayard  in  his  dispatch 
to  the  Secretary  of  State  November  i,  1893.  (/^/.,  p.  128.)  He 
pointed  out  that  the  obligations  of  the  treaty  and  the  award  were 
imposed  "only  upon  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  leaving  depredations  upon  seal  life  under  other  flags 
not  only  unchecked,  but  in  effect  affirmatively  legalized  by  the 
text  of  the  award."     He  therefore  suggested  that — 

"it  would  seem  highly  expedient  to  caution  the  Governments  of 
Japan  and  Korea,  as  well  as  the  Sandwich  Islands,  against  attempts 
which    may  be  made   to  carry  on  under  their  flags,  fur-seal  fishing." 

He  further  suggested  that  Russia  and  Japan,  having  almost  iden- 
tical interests  in  the  sealing  question  with  the  United  States,  be 
asked  to  adhere  to  the  regulations  without  waiting  for  cooperative 
action    by  Great    Britain,  and  that  as  a  matter  of  justice  to   those 


i6 

countries  and  to  be  consistent  with  the  expressed  policy  of  the 
United  States  of  preserving,  the  seals  for  the  benefit  of  mankind, 
this  Government  should  agree  to  extend  the  operation  of  the  Paris 
regulations,  so  far  as  United  States  citizens  were  concerned,  to  Rus- 
sian and  Japanese  waters.  Of  Russia's  adherence  he  seemed  to  have 
no  doubt,  and  he  expressed  the  opinion  that — 

"the  participation  of  Sweden  and  Norway,  France  and  Italy  in  the 
composition  of  the  Paris  Tribunal  and  framing  its  decrees  would 
seem  to  render  it  impossible  that  those  Governments  would  permit 
their  flags  to  be  used."     (/'/.,  p.  129.) 

Arrangements  tenth  Japan. 

The  Japanese  minister  at  Washington  had  already  been  asked 
whether  his  Government  would  give  its  adhesion  to  the  regulations. 
His  reply  (October  24,  1893)  was  that — 

"his  Government  would  gladly  come  to  an  understanding  with  the 
United  States,  Great  Britain,  and  Russia  for  protecting  the  seal  in 
the  Pacific  Ocean  north  of  the  35th  degree  of  north  latitude,  between 
California  and  Japan,"  but  "could  not  fairly  be  expected  to  give  its 
adhesion  to  the  regulations  recommended  by  the  arbitrators,  and 
thus  prohibit  Japanese  subjects  from  taking  seal  during  the  months 
of  May,  June,  and  July  *  *  *  |^jj^  Bering  Sea]  while  citizens  of 
the  United  States  and  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  subjects 
of  all  the  other  powers,  are  permitted  to  engage  in  pelagic  sealing 
[in   Japanese  waters].  "     {/d.,p.  121.] 

The  question  of  Canadian  sealing  vessels  sailing  under  the  Japa- 
nese flag  was  brought  directly  to  the  attention  of  the  Japanese 
.Government  by  the  American  minister  in  Japan.  The  Japanese  Gov- 
ernment promptly  agreed  to  take  measures  to  prevent  foreign  vessels 
from  using  the  flag  of  Japan  to  evade  the  seal-fisheries  regulations, 
but  declined  to  require  bona  fide  Japanese  vessels  to  observe  the  regu- 
lations unless  the  protection  asked  for  should  be  given  Japanese  seal 
fisheries  {id.,  p.  135),  and  instructions  were  issued  by  the  Japanese 
Government  to  its  consuls  at  San  Francisco,  Vancouver,  and  other 
ports  to  prevent  the  use  of  the  Japanese  flag  by  foreign  vessels. 
{Id.,  p.  137.) 

Subsequently,  Japan  formally  offered  to  become  a  pai-ty  to  the 
regulations  and  to  enter  upon  negotiations  for  that  purpose,  on  con- 
dition that  the  regulations  should  be  extended  to  cover  Japanese 
waters.      {Id.,  p.  137.) 

The  propriety  of  a  treaty  between  the  four  powers  extending  the 
regulations  to  Russian  and  Japanese  waters  was  recognized  by  the 
United  States  Government,  and  at  that  time  the  British  Govern- 
ment was   also  in   favor   of   it   {id.,  pp.   122,    132,    140,   153),  but  no 


^7 

further  action  in  that  direction  was  taken  pending  the  completion  of 
the  arrangements  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  for 
enforcing  the  regulations. 

Arrangements  with  Russia. *■ 

Great  Britain  and  Russia  had  entered  into  a  separate  agreement 
in  the  spring  of  1893,  providing  that  seals  were  not  to  be  killed  by 
their  respective  subjects  within  10  miles  of  the  mainland  coast  of 
Russia  or  within  30  miles  of  the  Russian  seal  islands,  and  that  the 
Russian  Government  should  not  permit  more  than  30,000  seals  to  be 
killed  annually  on  the  islands.  This  agreement  was  to  remain  in 
force  only  until  December  31,  1893,  but  it  has  been  renewed  from 
time  to  time  {id.,  p.  201;  Foreign  Relations,  1895,  pp.  632,  681),  and 
was  still  in  force  during  the  Russian-Japanese  war  in  1904  (Foreign 
Relations,  1904,  p.  340). 

Prior  to  entering  into  this  agreement  Russia  had  seized  some 
British  vessels  hunting  seals  on  the  Russian  side  of  Bering  Sea,  but 
outside  of  the  3-mile  limit,  asserting  the  right  to  forbid  the  hunting 
of  seals  anywhere  on  the  Russian  side  of  Bering  Sea.  These  seizures 
were  made  the  subject  of  a  claim  for  damages  by  Great  Britain, 
which  claim  was  finally  admitted  by  Russia  and  an  indemnity  was 
allowed  and  the  agreement  above  referred  to  entered  into  while  the 
Paris  Arbitration  Tribunal  was  in  session. 

This  action  on  the  part  of  Russia  was  regarded  as  exceedingly 
prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States  before  the  Paris 
Tribunal.  The  special  right  to  protect  the  seals  beyond  the  3-mile 
limit  as  claimed  by  the  United  States  was  based  partly  on  the  ground 
that  such  right  had  always  been  exercised  by  Russia  prior  to  the 
cession  of  Alaska,  and  had  passed  to  the  United  States  under  the 
treaty  of  cession,  and  the  payment  l)y  Russia  of  an  indemnity  for 
seizing  these  British  vessels  in  Bering  Sea  was  construed  as  an  aban- 
donment of  her  earlier  claim  of  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  fur 
seals  in  such  waters  and  an  admission  that  such  jurisdiction  did  not 
"extend  beyond  the  ordinary  3-mile  limit. 

In  commenting  on  this  action  on  the  part  of  Russia  Mr.  (rresham, 
then  Secretary  of  State,  said,  in  his  letter  of  July  14,  1893,  to  the 
American  minister  at  St.  Petersburg: 

"If  it  be  true  that  Russia  sympathizes  with  the  United  States  in 
the  present  controversy  submitted  to  the  ParisTribunal,  and  believes 
the  right  which  we  asserted  is  well  founded,  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand why  that  Government  agreed  to  make  indemnity  for  the  seizure 
of  two  British  vessels  poaching  in  the  Bering  Sea  near  the  eastern 
shore. " 


i8 

In  the  same  letter  he  stated  the  grounds  upon  which  Russia  jus- 
tified such  action,  as  follows: 

"When  I  called  the  minister's  attention  to  information  which  had 
been  received  indicating  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  his  Government  to 
make  concessions  to  Great  Britain  inconsistent  with  the  right  asserted 
by  the  United  States  before  the  Paris  Tribunal,  he  informed  me  that 
Mr.  Blaine  positively  refused  to  allow  the  Russian  Government  to 
become  a  party  to  that  treaty,  and  it  was  therefore  obliged  to  take 
care  of  itself  as  best  it  could;  that  his  Government  did  not  believe 
the  right  asserted  by  the  United  States  to  property  in  the  seals  on  the 
high  seas  was  valid,  and  that  Russia  could  not,  therefore,  assume 
the  attitude  of  the  United  States  on  that  question.  I  can  not  resist' 
the  belief  that  in  these  statements  the  minister  represented  the  real 
position  of  the  Russian  Government."  (Moore's  International  Law 
Digest,  vol.  I,  p.  923,  sec.  173.) 

In  January,  1894,  Russia  proposed  a  similar  arrangement  with 
the  United  States,  suggesting  at  the  same  time  the  need  of  a  more 
comprehensive  understanding  in  the  future.  (Foreign  Relations, 
1894,  Appendix  I,  p.  141.)  In  March  the  Secretary  of  State  re- 
sponded, pointing  out  the  necessity  for  deferring  a  joint  under- 
standing until  the  concurrent  regulations  with  Great  Britain  had 
been  established,  when  the  invitation  to  adhere  would  be  extended. 
(/^.,  pp.  153,  161.)  Subsequently,  it  seemed  advisable  not  to  await 
action  by  Great  Britain,  and  on  March  28,  1894,  the  United  States 
proposed  a.  modus  7'ivendi  with  Russia  in  substantially  the  form  of  the 
Anglo-Russian  agreement  of  1893.  {Id.,  pp.  157,  158,  161.)  In  mak- 
ing this  proposal  Mr.  Gresham  reasoned  that  inasmuch  as  Russian 
subjects  had  never  taken  seals  on  the  United  States  side  of  the  Pacific 
since  the  cession  of  Alaska,  there  was  no  cause  to  apprehend  that 
they  would  now  do  so,  and  therefore  that  the  United  States  need 
exact  nothing  in  the  way  of  reciprocity  from  Russia,  {/d.,  p.  161.) 
The  agreement,  being  substantially  the  same  as  Russia's  proposal, 
was  accepted  and  signed  at  Washington  on  May  4,  1894.  In  accept- 
ing this  agreement,  however,  Russia  made  certain  reservations, 
which  were  as  follows: 

"  I.  It  is  understood,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  understanding 
established  between  our  two  Governments  leaves  unimpaired  all  the 
rights  of  Russia  in  its  territorial  waters. 

"2.  In  delivering  to  the  authorities  of  theUnited  States  the  Ameri- 
can ships  engaged  in  hunting  fur  seals  in  the  prohibited  waters,  we 
do  not  in  any  way  intend  to  prejudice  the  question  of  the  rights  ot 
maritime  power  to  extend  its  territorial  jurisdiction  in  certain  special 
cases  beyond  territorial  waters  properly  so  called. 

"  3.  The  Imperial  Government  reserves  its  entire  liberty  as  to  the 
choice  in  the  future  between  the  two  systems  of  protecting  fur  seals, 
either  by  means  of  a  prohibited  zone  or  by  means  of  complete  pro- 
hibition of  pelagic  hunting,  or  by  regulating  it  on  the  high  seas. 


19 

"  4-  The  present  arrangement  shall  only  be  in  force  until  further 
orders,  will  only  have  an  essentially  provisional  character,  and  shall 
in  no  way  be  used  as  a  precedent."     {Id.,  p.  163.) 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  right  to  extend  territorial  jurisdiction 
in  special  cases  beyond  territorial  waters  and  to  prohibit  or  regulate 
the  hunting  of  fur  seals  on  the  high  seas,  thus  reserved  by  Russia, 
was  inconsistent  with  the  position  taken  by  Russia  in  the  settlement 
of  the  British  sealers'  claims  and  with  the  then  recent  decision  of  the 
Paris  Tribunal.  The  explanation  of  Russia's  insistence  upon  these 
reservations  will  be  found  in  the  fact  that,  notwithstanding  the  pay- 
ment of  the  indemnity  to  the  British  sealers,  Russia  had  refused  to 
indemnify  certain  American  sealers  seized  under  like  conditions,  and 
had  based  its  refusal  on  the  ground  that  the  United  States  had  com- 
mitted itself  before  the  Paris  Tribunal  to  the  position  that  Russia 
had  jurisdiction  to  make  such  seizures  in  Bering  Sea.  These  claims 
were  ultimately  settled  in  favor  of  the  United  States  by  arbitration. 

In  commenting  on  Russia's  position  in  this  matter  Secretary  of 
State  Olney,  in  his  letter  of  April  25,  1896,  to  the  American  minister 
at  St.  Petersburg,  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  since  the  decision 
of  the  Paris  Tribunal  Russia  had  indicated  unquestionably  her 
acceptance  of  the  decision  in  her  adoption  of  a  general  policy  in 
consonance  with  its  findings. 

(The  correspondence  on  this  question,  so  far  as  published,  will 
be  found  in  Moore's  International  Law  Digest,  vol.  I,  p.  926,  sec.  173.) 

The  agreement  above  referred  to  was  never  formally  terminated, 
but  in  1897  it  was  superseded  by  an  act  of  Congress,  passed  in  that 
year,  prohibiting  American  citizens  and  persons  belonging  to 
American  vessels  from  killing  or  capturing  seals  in  the  Bering  Sea 
and  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk,  thus  protecting  both  the  Japanese  and 
Russian  seal  islands.  No  agreements  on  this  subject  were  made 
with  Japan  by  either  Great  Britain  or  the  United  States. 

At  the  time  of  signing  the  American-Russian  jnodiis  vivendi  in 
Washington,  May  4,  1894,  the  Russian  minister  took  occasion  to 
make  the  following  statement  in  writing: 

"In  signing  to-day  this  essential  provisional  arrangement,  I  hereby 
reiterate  to  you,  in  writing,  the  declaration  tliat  the  Imperial  Gov- 
ernment is,  for  its  part,  prepared  to  negotiate  and  sign  with  the 
United  States,  England,  and  Japan,  a  treaty  in  virtue  of  which  the 
principles  and  regulations  of  the  Paris  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  shall 
be  applicable  indifferently  to  all  the  waters  of  the  Pacific  Ocean 
situated  north  of  the  35th  parallel  of  north  latitude."  (Foreign 
Relations,  1894,  Appendix  I,  p.  190.) 

It  thus  appears  that  both  Russia  and  Japan  refused  to  give  adher- 
ence to  the  regulations  of  the  award  unless   the   United  States  and 


20 

Great  Britain  would  agree  that  such  regulations  should  be  "  applica- 
ble indifferently  to  all  the  waters  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  situated  north 
of  the  35th  parallel  of  north  latitude."  Great  Britain's  consent  to 
this  arrangement  has  never  been  given,  and  consequently  the  adher- 
ence of  Russia  and  Japan  has  never  been  secured. 


INVITATIONS  TO  OTHER  POWERS  TO  ADHERE  TO  THE 
REGULATIONS. 

In  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  Article  VII  of  the  arbitration 
treaty  of  February  29,  1892,  requiring  the  two  Governments  to 
cooperate  in  securing  the  adhesion  of  other  powers  to  the  regula- 
tions established  by  the  tribunal,  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  agreed  upon  a  form  of  identicnote  requesting  such  adhesion. 
On  July  30,  1894,  Great  Britain  submitted  for  the  approval  of  the 
United  States  the  following  list  of  powers  to  whom  it  was  sug- 
gested that  the  identic  note  should  be  addressed  (Foreign  Relations, 
1894,  Appendix  I,  p.  213):  Argentine  Republic,  Austria-Hungary, 
Belgium,  Brazil,  Chile,  China,  Colombia,  Costa  Rica,  Denmark, 
Dominican  Republic,  Ecuador,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Guate- 
mala, Hawaii,  Haiti,  Honduras,  Italy,  Japan,  Mexico,  Netherlands, 
Nicaragua,  Peru,  Portugal,  Russia,  Salvador,  Spain,  Sweden  and 
Norway,  Turkey,  Uruguay,  and  Venezuela.  It  was  finally  decided, 
however,  that  the  following  should  be  omitted  from  the  list:  China, 
Colombia,  Costa  Rica,  Denmark,  Dominican  Republic,  Ecuador, 
Greece,  Guatemala,  Haiti,  Honduras,  Nicaragua,  Salvador, 
Uruguay,  and  Venezuela. 

On  August  20,  1894,  both  Governments  sent  separately  to  each 
of  the  other  powers  in  the  above  list  the  identic  note  agreed  upon, 
informing  them  of  the  situation  under  the  Paris  award  and  inviting 
their  adhesion  to  the  regulations  prescribed.  Great  Britain  also 
sent  one  of  these  notes  to  the  Danish  legation  at  London.  The 
notes  sent  by  the  United  States  Government  were  addressed  to  the 
Washington  representatives  of  the  powers  named.      (/^.,  p.  217.) 

The  response  from  the  representatives  of  most  of  these  Govern- 
ments was  merely  an  acknowledgment  of  the  receipt  of  the  note, 
with  a  statement  of  its  transmission  to  their  respective  Govern- 
ments. The  Governments  which  took  action  in  the  matter  were 
Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Hawaii,  Italy,  Japan,  Portugal, 
and  Russia,  and  their  respective  answers  were  as  follows  (zV. ,  pp. 
218-224) : 


21 

The  Belgian  minister  responded,  December  23,  1894: 

"As  no  Belgian  vessel  ever  visits  the  regions  in  question,  my 
Government  thinks — and  it  has  instructed  me  to  so  inform  )^our 
excellency — that  there  is  no  reason  for  proposing  any  special  meas- 
ure to  the  legislative  body  of  Belgium. 

"  It  adds  that  it  nevertheless  renders  sincere  homage  to  the 
efforts  that  are  made  by  the  United  States,  together  with  Great 
Britain,  in  behalf  of  a  cause  which  interests  the  entire  world."  {Id., 
p.  219.) 

The  Danish  Government  replied  to  Great  Britain,  July  3,  1895, 
that  as  it  had  been  ascertained  that  no  Danish  ships  participate  in 
the  fur-seal  hunting  in  the  waters  referred  to  they  did  not,  at  least 
for  the  moment,  find  sufficient  reason  to  ask  the  Danish  Parliament 
to  pass  the  law  authorizing  them  to  give  effect  to  the  regulations  in 
question.      (Foreign  Relations,  1895,  p.  661.) 

The  French  ambassador  responded,  October  5,  1894,  that  he  was 
informed  by  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  that  the  question  had 
been  submitted  to  the  competent  authorities  for  examination,  and 
as  soon  as  a  decision  had  been  reached  it  would  be  communicated. 
No  further  communication  appears  to  have  been  received,  however. 
(Foreign  Relations,  1894,  Appendix  I,  p.  220.) 

The  German  ambassador  responded,  October  29,  1894,  that —  • 

"  Upon  investigation,  it  is  shown  that  German  shipping  has  never 
taken  part  in  seal  hunting  in  Bering  Sea,  and  that  under  these  cir- 
cumstances the  Imperial  Government  does  not  consider  it  sufficiently 
important  to  resort  to  imperial  legislation  for  the  protection  of-  the 
seals  in  the  manner  proposed. 

"The  Imperial  Government,  however,  will  gladly  take  occasion, 
through  public  notices,  and  by  executive  means,  to  issue  warnings 
to  its  people  interested  in  shipping,  in  conformity  with  the  laws 
enacted  by  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States."     {Id.,  p.  220.) 

The  Hawaiian  minister  responded,  August  22,  1894,  that  he  had 
forwarded  the  communication  to  his  Government,  and  added: 

"I  venture  to  predict  that  the  earliest  possible  action  will  be 
taken  by  the  authorities  at  Honolulu  in  issuing  the  necessary  orders 
to  the  masters  of  Hawaiian  vessels  and  to  citizens  of  the  Hawaiian 
Republic  to  observe  the  regulations  prescribed,  and  that  every  aid 
will  be  given  the  high  contracting  parties  by  legislation  and  other- 
wise, looking  to  the  protection  of  the  fur  seal  in  the  territory 
described."     {Id.,  p.  221.) 

The  Italian  ambassador  responded,  November  5,  1894,  that  he 
was  instructed — 

"to  announce  the  adhesion  of  the  King's  Government  to  tlic  rules 
established  by  agreement  between  the  Federal  Government  and  that 
of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  for  the  regulation  of  seal  fishing  in  Bering 
Sea."     {Id.,  p.  221.) 


22 

The  Portuguese  minister  responded,  October  15,  1894,  that  his 
Government  "  had  decided  to  give  its  adherence  to  the  regulations, 
and  he  added,  however,  that  his  Government — 

"desires  that  it  be  distinctly  and  clearly  established  that  its  adhe- 
rence is  restrictive  simply  as  regards  the  taking  of  the  fur  seal,  and 
in  the  waters  comprised  within  the  limits  traced  by  the  Tribunal 
of  Arbitration  of  Paris,  this  act  of  the  Government  implying  no 
recognition  on  its  part  of  any  principle  tending  to  regulate  fishing 
outside  of  the  territorial  waters  of  each  nation."'     (/^.,  p.  223.) 

The  position  of  Japan  and  Russia  with  respect  to  this  question 
had  already  been  defined  in  the  negotiations  preceding  this  formal 
invitation,  in  the  course  of  which  they  both  had  refused  their  adher- 
ence unless  the  regulations  were  extended  to  the  Asiatic  waters. 

The  Russian  ambassador,  in  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  the 
invitation,  restated  this  requirement  as  a  condition  of  adherence  by 
his  Government  {id.,  p.  224),  and  the  Japanese  minister  merely 
acknowledged  the  receipt  of  the  note  and  referred  it  to  his  Govern- 
ment {id.,  p.  221).      No  further  response  was  received. 

President  Cleveland,  referring  to  this  matter  in  his  annual  mes- 
sage of  December  3,  1894,  said: 

"Thus  far  only  France  and  Portugal  have  signified  their  willing- 
ness to  adhere  to  the  regulations  established  under  the  award  of  the 
Paris  Tribunal  of  Arbitration." 

As  appears  from  the  above  responses,  Italy  should  be  substituted 
for  France  in  this  statement. 


PROPOSALS  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES  FOR  A  TEMPORARY  SUSPEN- 
SION OF  SEALING,  FOR  REVISION  OF  THE  REGULATIONS,  AND 
FOR  CONCURRENT  ACTION  BY  GREAT  BRITAIN,  JAPAN,  AND 
RUSSIA  EXTENDING  THE  REGULATIONS  TO  ASIATIC  WATERS— 
1894-1897. 

The  Paris  Tribunal  appended  to  its  award  the  following  declara- 
tion, which  was  not  binding  upon  the  two  Governments,  but  was 
recommended  for  their  adoption: 

"In  view  of  the  critical  condition  to  which  it  appears  certain 
that  the  race  of  fur  seals  is  now  reduced  in  consequence  of  circum- 
stances not  fully  known,  the  arbitrators  think  fit  to  recommend  both 
Governments  to  come  to  an  understanding  in  order  to  prohibit  any 
killing  of  fur  seals,  either  on  land  or  at  sea,  for  a  period  of  two  or 
three  years,  or  at  least  one  year,  subject  to  such  exceptions  as  the 
two  Governments  might  think  proper, to  admit  of. 

"  Such  a  measure  might  be  recurred  to  at  occasional  intervals  if 
found  beneficial."     (Foreign  Relations,  1894,  Appendix  I,  p.   117.) 


The  United  States  arbitrators  accepted  this  recommendation, 
but  the  British  arbitrators  refused  to  approve,  because,  as  stated  in 
Protocol  LIV  of  the  tribunal — 

"  although  approving  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  conceived,  and  although 
regarding  as  very  desirable  that  the  destruction  of  the  fur  seal  might 
be  entirely  suspended  during  a  certain  period  of  time" — 

yet  thej'  did  not  feel  authorized  to  express  an  opinion  officially  on 
the  subject. 

Promptly  after  the  award  was  made  Secretary  Gresham  asked  the 
concurrence  of  Great  Britain  in  adopting  this  recommendation  and 
suggesting  that  Russia  should  be  asked  to  join.  (/</.,  pp.  107,  119.) 
In  connection  with  this  proposition  Mr.  Bayard,  then  ambassador 
at  London,  suggested  to  Secretary  Gresham  the  following  consid- 
eration : 

"To  suspend  wholly,  even  for  a  single  year,  the  seal  catch  on 
the  islands  might  be  highly  prejudicial  to  the  United  States,  or  their 
lessees,  and  as  in  the  provisional  or  temporary  arrangement  of  May, 
1893,  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain,  a  limit  of  30,000  seals  on 
the  Russian  islands  was  agreed  to,  it  would  seem  a  very  reasonable 
figure  to  adopt  for  the  catch  on  the  Pribilof  Islands,  whose  product 
has  been  supposed  to  be  about  double  that  of  the  Russian  islands." 
{Id.,  p.  119.) 

In  answer  Secretary  Gresham  wrote  (October  27,  1893): 

"I  sent  you  yesterday  copy  of  the  contract  which  secures  to  the 
North  American  Commercial  Company  the  exclusive  right  to  take 
seal  on  the  Pribilof  Islands,  thinking  it  advisable  that  you  should 
know  the  precise  relations  between  the  United  States  and  that  com- 
pany. The  President  is  not  now  prepared  to  say  how  far  we  ought 
to  go  in  limiting  the  seal  catch  should  Great  Britain  make  a  demand 
of  that  kind.  You  are  well  informed  on  the  subject  of  the  seal  indus- 
try and  all  matters  relating  to  it,  and  we  rely  with  confidence  upon 
your  judgment  in  dealing  with  Lord  Rosebery.  If  Great  Britain 
hrnily  insists  that  only  a  limited  number  of  seals  shall  be  taken  on 
the  islands,  and  you  must  yield  or  fail  in  the  effort  to  obtain  a  satis- 
factory understanding  for  concurrent  action,  you  can  report  the  fact 
to  me,  and  I  will  communicate  it  to  the  President  for  his  direction. " 
{Id.,  p.   127.) 

No  response  from  Great  Britain  was  received,  however,  and  on 
January  24,  1894,  Secretary  Gresham  renewed  the  suggestion  to  the 
British  ambassador  at  Washington,  stating: 

"The  United  States  would  be  glad  to  proiiibit  entirely,  for  a 
pericjcl  <){  three  years,  or  for  two  years,  or  for  one  year,  tlic  killing 
of  seals. " 

It  does  not  appear  that  any  response  was  ever  made  lo  this  propo- 
sition.     (Foreign  Relations,  1897,  p.  286.) 


24 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  neutral  arbitrators  proposed 
that  the  regulations  under  the  award  should  apply  to  the  Asiatic  seal 
fisheries,  and  that  this  suggestion  was  not  adopted  because  subse- 
quent negotiations  on  the  subject  by  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  with  Japan  and  Russia  might  thereby  be  prejudiced.  It  has 
also  been  shown  that  both  Japan  and  Russia  were  willing  to  have 
such  regulations  extended  to  include  their  seal  fisheries  and  had 
made  the  concurrence  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  in  such 
extension  a  condition  of  their  adhesion  to  the  regulations.  When, 
therefore,  the  United  States  found  it  impossible  to  secure  Great 
Britain's  consent  to  a  temporary  suspension  of  sealing  for  either 
one,  two,  or  three  years,  as  recommended  by  the  Paris  Tribunal,  it 
became  necessary  to  take  up  the  question  of  extending  the  regula- 
tions to  Asiatic  waters.  It  also  seemed  desirable  to  the  United 
States  at  the  same  time  to  raise  the  question  of  a  general  revision  of 
the  regulations. 

It  was  provided  in  article  9  of  the  award — 

"  The  concurrent  regulations  hereby  determined  with  a  view  to 
the  protection  and  preservation  of  the  fur  seals  shall  remain  in  force 
until  they  have  been,  in  whole  or  in  part,  abolished  or  modified  by 
common  agreement  between  the  Governments  of  the  United  States 
and  of  Great  Britain. 

"The  said  concurrent  regulations  shall  be  submitted  every  five 
years  to  a  new  examination,  so  as  to  enable  both  interested  Govern- 
ments to  consider  whether,  in  the  light  of  past  experience,  there  is 
occasion  for  any  modification  thereof."  (Foreign  Relations,  1894, 
Appendix  I,  p.  113.) 

The  result  of  the  first  sealing  season  under  the  award  regula- 
tions, however,  suggested  the  necessity  for  an  immediate  revision 
of  the  regulations  if  their  stated  purpose  to  secure  "the  protection 
and  preservation  of  the  fur  seal"  was  to  be  accomplished. 

At  the  close  of  the  1894  sealing  season  it  was  found  that  the 
total  pelagic  catch  for  the  season  had  been  about  142,000  skins,  the 
largest  ever  made  in  the  history  of  sealing.  Of  this  catch  about 
50,000  skins  were  known  to  have  been  taken  on  the  Japanese  coast 
and  about  7,000  on  the  Russian  coast.  In  addition  to  these  there 
were  about  20,000  skins  which  were  not  otherwise  identified  and 
presumably  were  taken  from  the  Russian  and  Japanese  herds.  The 
total  catch  in  those  waters  during  that  season  was  considerably  more 
than  twice  the  number  taken  in  the  preceding  year.  The  number  of 
skins  taken  in  Bering  Sea  was  about  8,000  more  than  the  catch  of 
1891,  the  last  open  season,  which  was  the  record  catch  up  to  that 
date.      {Id-,  P-  226;   Foreign  Relations,  1895,  pp.  594,  611,  620,  649.) 

This  being  the   situation.    Secretary   Gresham,    on   January   23, 


25 

1895,  wrote  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote,  stating  that  under  the  circum- 
stances the  President  deemed  it  advisable  to  suggest  to  the  British 
Government  and  to  the  Governments  of  Russia  and  Japan  that  a 
commission  of  scientists  be  appointed  to  secure  further  scientific 
information  on  the  subject,  and  he  added  : 

"  I  am  further  directed  to  suggest  that  during  its  deliberations 
the  respective  Governments  agree  upon  a  modus  vive7idi,  as  follows: 
'  That  the  regulations  now  in  force  be  extended  along  the  line  of 
the  35th  degree  of  north  latitude  from  the  American  to  the  Asiatic 
shore,  and  be  enforced  during  the  coming  season  in  the  whole  of 
the  Pacific  Ocean  and  waters  north  of  that  line.  Furthermore,  that 
sealing  in  Bering  Sea  be  absolutely  prohibited  pending  the  report 
of  such  commission.'"  (Foreign  Relations,  1894,  Appendix  I, 
p.  228.) 

No  answer  was  received  from  Great  Britain,  and  the  proposition 
was  again  urged  by  the  United  States  Government  on  May  10,  1895. 
In  the  letter  of  that  date  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  renewing  the  pro- 
posal, the  closing  paragraph  is  as  follows: 

"In  thus  communicating  to  you,  by  direction  of  the  President, 
the  proposals  and  suggestions  of  this  Government,  I  desire,  by  way 
of  recapitulation,  to  lay  especial  stress  upon  (i)  the  necessity  of 
immediate  agreement  to  close  Bering  Sea  absolutely  to  pelagic  seal- 
ers pending  consideration  of  the  proposition  for  extending  the  pro- 
tective area  of  the  North  Pacific  Ocean  along  the  35th  parallel  to 
the  Asiatic  coast,  with  the  concurrence  of  Russia  and  Japan  ;  (2) 
the  proposal  for  a  modus  vivendi  whereby  the  effective  concurrence  of 
Great  Britain,  Russia,  Japan,  and  the  United  States  shall  be  lent  to 
the  protection  of  the  fur-seal  herds;  (3)  the  appointment  of  a  joint 
commission,  as  suggested  in  Mr.  Gresham's  note  of  January  23,  1895  ; 
and  (4)  the  advisability,  if  not  the  proven  necessity,  for  amending 
the  concurrent  legislation  of  the  two  countries  for  the  expansion  and 
more  precise  definition  of  the  scope  of  the  Paris  award,  and  the  duty 
of  the  two  Governments  thereunder."  (Foreign  Relations,  1895, 
p.  615.) 

On  May  27,  1895,  the  reply  of  Great  Britain  was  received.  After 
reviewing  the  results  of  the  sealing  season  of  1894  it  was  stated  that 
"  the  condition  of  affairs  is  not  of  so  urgent  a  character  as  the  Presi- 
dent has  been  led  to  believe"  (zV/.,  p.  619);  "  that  increased  pelagic 
catch  on  the  Japanese  coast  does  not  constitute  a  serious  menace  to 
the  seals  frequenting  the  Pribilof  Islands"  {id.^  p.  620);  and,  finally, 
that— 

"Taking  all  these  circumstances  into  consideration.  Her  Majes- 
ty's Government  can  not  agree, that  any  sufficient  evidence  as  yet 
exists  to  show  that  the  regulations  have  failed  in  their  effect  or  that 
there  is  such  urgent  danger  of  total  extinction  of  the  seals  as  to  call 
for  a  departure  from  the  arbitral  award  by  which  the  two  nations 
have  solemnly  bound  themselves  to  abide."      (/'/.,  p.  621.) 


26 


It  was  further  stated 


"As  regards  the  proposed  modus  vivendi  for  this  season,  Her 
Majesty's  Government  regret  that  they  find  themselves  unable  to 
accept  this  proposal." 

And  further: 

"  Nor  can  Her  Majesty's  Government  believe  that  the  appoint- 
ment at  present  of  an  international  commission,  such  as  is  suggested 
by  Mr.  Gresham,  would  lead  to  any  useful  result."     (/^.,   p.  622.) 

It  was  suggested,  however,  that  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  might  appoint  agents  to  reside  upon  the  seal  islands  for  the 
next  four  years,  which  would  complete  the  five-year  period  for  the  re- 
vision under  the  Paris  award,  by  which  time  the  revision  of  the 
regulations  could  be  approached  in  a  thoroughly  scientific  manner. 
It  was  further  suggested  that  similar  arrangements  might  be  made 
with  Russia  for  the  appointment  of  agents  on  the  Commander 
Islands.      (/^. ,  p.  6123.) 

On  June  24,  1895,  Secretary  Olney,  who  had  succeeded  Mr, 
Gresham,  again  brought  the  subject  to  the  attention  of  the  British 
Government.  He  pointed  out  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Paris 
Tribunal  had  not  made  any  finding  on  the  question  of  the  comming- 
ling of  the  Asiatic  and  Bering  Sea  herds,  this  must  still  be  regarded 
as  a  disputed  question  which  required  most  careful  consideration; 
that  nevertheless,  even  if  the  United  States  was  right  in  its  conten- 
tion, urged  before  the  Paris  Tribunal,  that  theseherds  did  commingle, 
yet  the  suggestion  that  the  protective  regulations  be  extended  over 
Asiatic  waters  was  not  founded  on  selfish  considerations  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States.  He  stated  that  the  desire  of  the  President 
was  "to  protect  the  fur-seal  fisheries  on  both  sides  of  the  North 
Pacific  Ocean,  Asiatic  as  well  as  American,  for  the  benefit  of  man- 
kind" {id.^  p.  650);  but  from  the  ascertained  facts  it  was  evident 
that  commercial  extermination  of  both  the  American  and  Asiatic 
seal  herds,  was  imminent.  Under  the  circumstances,  therefore,  the 
British  suggestion  of  a  four-year  investigation  seemed  inadequate, 
and  he  suggested  as  a  modification — 

"That  three  agents  each  be  appointed  by  the  respective  Govern- 
ments of  Great  Britain,  Russia,  Japan,  and  the  United  States,  twelve 
.in  all,  who  shall  be  stationed  on  the  Kurile,  Commander,  and  Pribi- 
lof  islands,  respectively;  that  these  agents  be  instructed  to  examine 
carefully  into  the  fur-seal  fishery  and  to  recommend  from  time  to 
time  needful  changes  in  the  regulations  of  the  Paris  award  and  desir- 
able limitations  of  the  land  catches  of  each  of  the  said  islands;  that 
within  four  5'-ears  they  shall  present  a  final  report  to  their  respective 
Governments;  and  that,  pending  such  report,  a  modus  vivendi  be 
entered  into,  extending  the  award  regulations  along  the  line  of  the 
35th  degree  of  north  latitude  from  the  American  to  the  Asiatic 
shores."      (/^/. ,  p.  653.) 


27 

In  answer  to  this  suggestion  Secretary  Olney  was  informed, 
August  19,  1895,  that — 

"Her  Majesty's  Government  can  not  recognize  that  Russia  and 
Japan  have  any  interest  in  the  seal  fishery  on  the  American  side  of 
the  North  Pacific,  and  that  they  can  not,  therefore,  take  part  in  any 
inquiry  on  the  Pribilof  Islands  in  which  those  powers  are  associated, 
but  Her  Majesty's  Government  is  ready  to  appoint  at  once  an  agent 
to  inquire,  conjointly  with  an  agent  of  the  United  States  alone,  as 
already  proposed;  and  they  would  also  be  ready  to  consider  any 
request  from  the  two  powers  concerned  to  join  in  an  inquiry  on 
similar  terms  with  Russia  and  Japan,  respectively,  in  the  Com- 
mander and  Kurile  islands."      {Id.,  p.  666.) 

Ten  days  later  he  was  asked  if  it  would  be  convenient  to  resume 
negotiations  the  following  October  and  was  informed  that  Sir  Mac- 
kenzie Bowell  was  prepared  to  come  to  Washington  to  take  part  in 
the  discussion  of  the  Bering  Sea  question.  (/^/. ,  p.  (>(>(i.)  To  this 
suggestion  a  noncommittal  answer  was  sent  on  September  5,  1895. 
(/./.,  p.  669.) 

The  negotiations  seem  to  have  been  suspended  at  this  point  until 
the  spring  of  1896. 

On  April  2,  1896,  Mr.  Olney  informed  Mr.  Bayard  that  — 

"The  Russian  Government  is  about  to  initiate  negotiations 
through  its  ambassador  at  London  for  an  extension  of  the  Paris 
award  fur-seal  regulations  of  1893  by  a  treaty  to  which  Great  Britain, 
the  United  States,  Russia,  and  Japan  shall  be  parties,  over  the  Bering 
and  Okhotsk  seas  and  the  North  Pacific  Ocean  from  latitude  35° 
north  from  one  continent  to  the  other.  It  has  also  made  request 
through  the  Russian  minister  at  this  capital  that  the  United  States 
shall  cooperate  in  such  negotiations."  (Foreign  Relations,  1896, 
p.  285.) 

Mr.  Olney  expressed  the  opinion  that  such  a  treaty  would  be  of 
gieat,  if  not  of  equal,  value  to  the  United  States,  and  directed  Mr. 
Bayard  to  aid  in  the  negotiations.      (Z^/-,  p.  285.) 

On  April  29,  1896,  Mr.  Bayard  reported  that  the  Russian  ambas- 
sador expressed  satisfaction  at  the  prospect  of  the  cooperation  of 
the  United  States  with  Russia  in  procuring  an  expansion  of  the  seal- 
ing regulations,  and  approval  of  his  suggestion  that  a  resume  of  the 
events  connected  with  fur  sealing  in  Bering  Sea  and  the  North 
Pacific  for  the  past  eight  years  be  laid  before  Lord  Salisbury.  It 
does  not  appear  that  such  a  resume  was  prepared.  In  the  interview 
nothing  was  said  on  either  side  with  relation  to  the  participation  of 
Japan  in  the  proposed  negotiations.  Mr.  Bayard  stated  in  his  letter, 
however,  that  he  did  not  doubt  "the  ready  and  friendly  cooperation 
of  that  Government."     {Id.,  p.  286.) 


28 

Lord  Salisbury  was  notified  of  the  authority  of  our  ambassador 
to  undertake  these  negotiations  on  April  i8,  1896.  (/<^.,  p.  288.) 
In  reply,  on  May  14,  1896,  Lord  Salisbury  wrote  that  his  Govern- 
ment wished  to  dispatch  an  agent — "a  properly  qualified  naturalist" — 
to  the  Commander  Islands  during  the  approaching  season  to  observe 
the  conditions  of  seal  life  there  and  to  collect  information  as  to  the 
working  of  the  existing  arrangement  with  Russia,  and  that  pending 
his  report  the  British  Government  was  not  in  a  position  to  enter 
upon  negotiations. 

At  this  point  the  negotiations  were  temporarily  suspended,  and 
during  the  following  summer  Prof.  D'Arcy  W.  Thompson,  with 
Messrs.  Macoun  and  Barrett  Hamilton  as  assistants,  was  sent  out  to 
the  seal  islands  by  the  British  and  Canadian  Governments  to  investi- 
gate the  conditions  of  seal  life.  The  United  States  sent  Dr.  David 
Starr  Jordan  to  make  a  similar  investigation.  The  reports  of  these 
scientists  showed  a  wide  divergence  of  opinion.  Doctor  Jordan's 
observations  led  to  the  positive  conclusion  that  pelagic  sealing  would 
ultimately  result  in  the  practical  extinction  of  the  hei^d  and  showed 
the  necessity  for  an  immediate  revision  of  the  regulations.  Pro- 
fessor Thompson's  report,  on  the  other  hand,  supported  the  Cana- 
dian view  that  there  was  nothing  alarming  in  the  conditions  under 
the  existing  regulations  and  that  very  slight  modifications  would  be 
sufficient. 

The  United  States  regarded  Professor  Thompson's  report  as 
untrustworthy,  and  questioned  its  good  faith  and  impartiality,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  it  had  been  held  back  until  after  Doctor  Jordan's 
report  had  been  presented  and  examined,  and  was  apparently 
designed  to  controvert  his  views,  rather  than  to  present  an  unbiased 
opinion.  In  writing  to  Ambassador  Hay  (May  10,  1897)  Secretary 
Sherman  comments  on  the  course  of  the  British  Government  in  this 
matter  as  follows: 

"  But  it  seems  to  have  better  suited  the  purposes  of  Her  Majesty's 
Government  to  withhold  Professor  Thompson's  report  until  an  oppor- 
tunity was  afforded  to  examine  that  of  Doctor  Jordan,  and  thus 
enable  the  former  to  pass  the  latter  in  review,  criticise  its  state- 
ments, and,  as  far  as  possible,  minimize  its  conclusions.  It  is  not 
pleasant  to  have  to  state  that  the  impartial  character  which  it  has 
been  the  custom  to  attribute  to  the  reports  of  naturalists  of  high 
standing  has  been  greatly  impaired  by  the  apparent  subjection  of 
this  report  to  the  political  exigencies  of  the  situation."  (Foreign 
Relations,  1897,  p.  281.) 

The  British  Government  nevertheless  maintained  the  position 
that  "there  is  apparently  no  reason  to  fear  that  the  seal  herd  is 
threatened  with  early  extermination."  At  the  same  time  the  belief 
was  expressed  that  "some  modification  of  the  sealing  regulations 
will  be  required  at  the  expiration  of  the  five-year  term  "  named  by 


29 

the  Arbitration  Tribunal,  which  period  would  expire  at  the  close  of 
the  season  of  1898.  It  was  therefore  proposed  that  scientists  be 
again  sent  out,  in  order  that  the  two  Governments  might  be  pre- 
pared to  discuss  modifications  of  the  regulations  in  1898  and  secure 
their  adoption  before  the  1899  season.  {Id.,  p.  261.)  In  connection 
with  this  suggestion  it  was  officially  stated  that  "no  revised  regu- 
lations will  be  adopted  without  previous  communication  with  the 
Dominion  Government."      (/^/. ,  p.  263.) 

In  response  to  this  suggestion  for  further  preliminary  investiga- 
tion the  United  States  Government  notified  Great  Britain  (August 
9,  1897)  that,  relying  upon  Doctor  Jordan's  report  and  other  ascer- 
tained facts  and  statistics,  the  President  is  forced  to  express  his  strong 
dissent  from  the  conclusion  reached  by  the  British  Government  "that 
there  is  no  such  imminent  danger  of  the  early  extermination  of  the 
seal  herd  as  to  call  for  any  action  by  the  two  Governments  before 
the  close  of  the  season  of  1898,"  and  it  was  proposed  and  urgently 
requested — 

"that  a  7nodits  vivendi  should  be  agreed  upon,  with  equitable  provi- 
sion for  the  interests  involved,  suspending  all  killing  for  the  season 
of  1897,  and  that  this  should  be  accompanied  by  an  arrangement  for 
a  joint  conference,  at  an  early  day,  of  the  powers  concerned,  to  agree 
upon  measures  necessary  to  preserve  the  seals  of  the  North  Pacific 
Ocean  from  extermination  and  to  restore  them  to  their  normal  con- 
dition for  insuring  continued  existence."     {Id.,  pp.  266,  267.) 

The  Russian  ambassador  in  London  was  informed  at  the  same 
time  and  expressed  the  particular  interest  of  his  Government  in  the 
project.      {Id.,  p.  267.) 

The  answer  of  the  British  Government  to  this  urgent  request  for 
an  immediate  suspension  of  pelagic  sealing  is  found  in  two  dispatches 
from  Lord  Salisbury  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  (April  21  and  May  7, 
1897)  which  were  communicated  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  {Id., 
pp.  270,  277.)  In  them  Lord  Salisbury  calls  attention  to  the  amount 
of  British  capital  and  the  number  of  British  subjects  employed  in 
the  sealing  industry,  to  show  the  natural  anxiety  of  Great  Britain  to 
establish  proper  regulations  for  the  preservation  of  the  industry,  and 
he  then  takes  the  extremely  optimistic  view  that  "there  is  no  indis- 
putable evidence  that  the  herd  has  quite  recently  been  decreasing, 
and  that  there  is  no  ground  therefore  for  immediate  alarm."  {Id., 
p.  280.)  Incidentally,  he  comments  on  the  repeated  predictions  of 
the  imminent  extinction  of  the  seals  advanced  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  as  follows: 

"  Similar  statements  as  to  the  immediate  disappearance  of  the 
herd  have  been  made  in  previous  years,  but  experience  has  shown 
that  the  fears  then  expressed  were  groundless,  and  Her  Majesty's 
Government  are  convinced  that  they  will  prove  to  be  equally  so  on 
the  present  occasion."     {Id.,  p.  271.) 


30 

And  he  reaches  the  familiar  conclusion  "that  further  investigation 
is  required  before  the  question  of  revising  the  regulations  can  be 
considered"  {id.,  p.  272),  and — 

"  The  interests  of  this  country  [Great  Britain]  in  the  question 
are  too  serious  to  warrant  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  imperiling 
them  by  the  adoption  of  any  hasty  decision."     {Id.,  p.  280.) 

On  the  question  of  the  modus  vivcndi  prohibiting  pelagic  sealing 
pending  the  revision,  he  says  that  owing  to  unfavorable  conditions 
the  preceding  year  many  of  the  owners  of  sealing  vessels  are  on  the 
verge  of  bankruptcy,  and  to  prohibit  pelagic  sealing  altogether  for 
the  next  season  would  mean  their  probable  ruin.     He  adds,  however: 

"Of  course,  if  the  United  States  Government  are  prepared  to 
give  adequate  compensation  to  the  sealing  fleet  on  account  of  its 
enforced  abstention  from  the  fishery  this  season.  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment would  have  no  reason  for  refusing  their  assent  to  the  pro- 
posal for  a  ?nodus  vtvendi,  but  they  do  not  gather  that  such  is  the  case, 
and  it  would  be  impossible  for  them  to  submit  a  note  to  Parliament 
for  the  purpose,  holding,  as  they  do,  that  no  sufficient  reason  has 
been  shown  for  its  necessity."     {Id.,  p.  271.) 

This  question  of  compensation,  which  later  became  the  leading 
question  in  the  negotiations,  is  brought  into  the  discussion  for  the 
first  time  by  the  suggestion  in  the  letter  of  Secretary  Sherman  (April 
9,  1897,  above),  then  under  consideration  by  Lord  Salisbury.  That 
suggestion  was  for  a  modus  vivendi  "with  equitable  provision  for  the 
interests  involved,  suspending  all  killing  for  the  season  of  1897," 
etc.  {id.,  p.  266),  which  was  correctly  understood  by  the  British  Gov- 
ernment to  mean  compensation  to  the  interests  involved  in  pelagic 
sealing  {id.,  p.  273),  but  did  not  specify  whether  the  compensation 
should  be  made  by  the  Canadian  or  United  States  Governments. 

It  is  also  to  be  noted  that  at  this  time  the  suggestion  of  branding 
the  female  seals,  so  as  to  destroy  the  skins  for  commercial  purposes, 
was  first  announced.      {Id.,  p.  270.) 

This  suggestion  of  compensation  was  not  carried  further  at  that 
time  by  the  United  States,  but  the  hope  of  securing  Great  Britain's 
consent  to  a  conference  was  not  altogether  abandoned,  and  to  that 
end  a  critical  review  of  Great  Britain's  action  in  the  matter  was  sub- 
mitted for  its  consideration.  This  review  is  contained  in  Secretary 
Sherman's  letter  of  May  10,  1897,  to  Ambassador  Hay  {id.,  p.  280), 
in  the  course  of  which  the  situation  as  it  then  stood  is  summarized 
as  follows : 

"In  no  respect  has  the  United  States  Government  failed  to 
observe  the  exact  terms  of  the  award  or  to  accept  its  recommenda- 
tions in  their  true  spirit  and  full  effect,  even  though  they  have 
entailed  heavy  expense  and  caused  great  damage  to  long-established 
interests  of  this  nation. 


"On  the  other  hand,  I  think  I  have  shown  that  the  British  Gov- 
ernment has  from  the  beginning  and  continuously  failed  to  respect 
the  real  intent  and  spirit  of  the  tribunal  or  the  obligations  imposed 
by  it.  This  is  shown  by  the  refusal  to  extend  the  regulations  to  the 
Asiatic  waters;  by  the  failure  to  put  in  operation  the  recommenda- 
tion for  a  suspension  of  the  killing  of  the  seals  for  three,  for  two,  or 
even  for  one  year;  by  the  neglect  to  put  the  regulations  in  force 
until  long  after  the  first  sealing  season  had  been  entered  on;  by  the 
almost  total  evasion  of  the  patrol  duty ;  by  the  opposition  to  suitable 
measures  for  the  enforcement  of  the  prohibition  against  firearms; 
by  the  omission  to  enact  legislation  necessary  to  secure  conviction 
of  the  guilty;  and  by  the  refusal  to  allow  or  provide  for  an  inspec- 
tion of  skins  in  the  interest  of  an  honest  observance  of  the  regula- 
tions."     (/<^. ,  p.  289.) 

In  the  course  of  this  letter  he  also  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that — 

"  The  effect  of  Lord  Hannen's  amendment  of  article  2  of  the  regu- 
lations has  been  to  bring  about  the  state  of  affairs  which  the  neutral 
arbitrators  desired  to  avoid,  to  wit,  to  transfer  the  sealing  vessels  to 
the  Asiatic  waters  during  the  closed  season  in  the  American  waters, 
which  they  expected  would  be  prevented  by  negotiations  between 
the  interested  Governments.  Such  negotiations  Great  Britain  has 
steadily  omitted  and  declined  to  enter  upon."     (/^.,  p.  285). 

In  conclusion,  he  says: 

"One  of  the  evil  results  is  already  indicated  in  the  growing  con- 
viction of  our  people  that  the  refusal  of  the  British  Government  to 
carry  out  the  recommendations  of  that  tribunal  will  needlessly  sac- 
rifice an  important  interest  of  the  United  States.  This  is  shown  by 
the  proposition  seriously  made  in  Congress  to  abandon  negotiations 
and  destroy  the  seals  on  the  islands,  as  the  speedy  end  to  a  danger- 
ous controversy,  although  such  a  measure  has  not  been  entertained 
by  this  Department."     {Id.,  p.  290.) 

No  reply  having  meanwhile  been  received  from  Great  Britain  the 
project  of  a  conference  of  the  powers  interested  was  again  proposed 
to  Great  Britain  in  July,  1897  [id.,  p.  299),  and  on  the  28th  of  that 
month  Lord -Salisbury  responded,  in  answer  both  to  Secretary  Sher- 
man's letter  of  May  10  (above  cited)  and  to  the  renewed  proposal 
for  a  conference,  that  the  British  Government  was  willing  "to  agree 
to  a  meeting  of  experts  nominated  by  Great  Britain  and  Canada 
and  by  the  United  States"  to  meet  in  October  after  the  investiga- 
tions then  undertaken  had  been  completed.  As  to  the  other  por- 
tions of  Secretary  Sherman's  dispatch  of  May  10,  lie  stated  that  so 
far  as  they  required  any  reply  they  had  already  been  answered  by 
anticipation  in  his  earlier  dispatches.  (A/.,  p.  300.)  Lord  Salis- 
bury's attention  was  promptly  called  to  the  expectation  of  the  United 
States  Government  that  both  Russia  and  Japan  would  be  represented 
at  the  conference  {id.,  p.  301),  and  no  objection  was  then  made. 

Meanwhile,  former  Secretary  of  State  John  W.  Foster  was  ap- 
pointed special  ambassador  to   Russia  and   Great  Britain  to  secure 


32 

their  participation  in  the  proposed  conference,  and  during  the 
summer  of  1897  he  had,  with  the  knowledge  and  presumed  consent 
of  Great  Britain,  arranged  with  Russia  to  take  part  in  the  con- 
ference to  be  held  in  the  following  October,  and  Japan  was  also 
invited  and  accepted. 

As  the  time  for  the  conference  approached,  however,  Great 
Britain  raised  objections  to  having  Russia  and  Japan  represented  at 
the  conference  on  the  ground  that  neither  of  those  countries  had 
any  direct  interest  in  the  Pribilof  Islands  herd,  or  any  experts 
familiar  with  the  question.  (/^.,  pp.  303,  304.)  The  United  States 
protested  against  this  course,  but  the  protest  was  ineffective  and 
Great  Britain  persisted  in  its  refusal  to  take  part  in  a  general  con- 
ference with  Japan  and  Russia  and  insisted  that  a  general  inter- 
national inquiry  would  be  premature  and  that  the  conference  should 
be  limited  to  merely  a  meeting  of  experts  in  which  no  "useful  pur- 
pose would  be  served  by  the  participation  of  Russia  and  Japan." 
(/^.,  p.  306.) 

It  was,  therefore,  arranged  that  a  conference  of  experts  repre- 
senting the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  should  be  held  in 
Washington,  in  October,  1897,  and  the  result  of  that  meeting  is 
embodied  in  a  joint  statement  setting  forth  a  series  of  propositions 
relating  to  the  conditions  of  the  Pribilof  Islands  seal  herd,  in  which 
all  the  delegates  concurred.  This  report  is  not  dated,  but  was 
transmitted  to  the  United  States  Government  on  November  17, 
1897.  In  it  all  reference  to  the  regulations  of  the  Paris  Tribunal 
was  omitted  by  mutual  consent.      (A/.,  p.  314.) 

Some  of  the  propositions  agreed  upon  were  as  follows: 

"12.  The  large  proportion  of  females  in  the  pelagic  catch  in- 
cludes not  only  adult  females  that  are  both  nursing  and  pregnant, 
but  also  young  seals  that  are  not  pregnant  and  others  that  have 
not  yet  brought  forth  young,  with  such  also  as  have  recently  lost 
their  young  through  the  various  causes  of  natural  mortality."  (/^. , 
P-  317-) 

"  15.  In  this  greater  reduction  of  the  pelagic  catch  compared 
with  the  gradual  decrease  of  the  herd  there  is  a  tendency  toward 
equilibrium,  or  a  stage  at  which  the  numbers  of  the  breeding  herd 
would  neither  increase  nor  decrease."     (/^.,  p.  317-) 

"16.  The  diminution  of  the  herd  is  yet  far  from  a  stage  which 
involves  or  threatens  the  actual  extermination  of  the  species,  so  long 
as  it  is  protected  in  its  haunts  on  land.  It  is  not  possible,  during 
the  continuance  of  the  conservative  methods  at  present  in  force  upon 
the  islands,  with  the  further  safeguard  of  the  protected  zone  at  sea, 
that  any  pelagic  killing  should  accomplish  this  final  end.  There  is 
evidence,  however,  that  in  its  present  condition  the  herd  yields  an 
inconsiderable  return  either  to  the  lessees  of  the  islands  or  to  the 
owners  of  the  pelagic  fleet."     (/^.,  p.  318.) 


Notwithstanding  Great  Britain's  refusal  to  meet  Japan  and 
Russia,  the  arrangements  for  a  conference  with  those  countries 
without  Great  Britain  were  perfected  by  General  Foster,  and  the 
representatives  of  the  United  States  and  those  two  powers  met  at 
Washington  in  October,  1897,  to  arrange  as  far  as  possible  for  joint 
action  on  the  seal  question.  The  proceedings  and  results  of  this 
conference  are  reviewed  below  at  page  34  et  seq. 

NEGOTIATIOx\S  WITH  CANADA. 

Immediately  after  the  close  of  the  conference  of  the  British, 
Canadian,  and  American  experts,  General  Foster,  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States  and  acting  for  the  Secretary  of  Stale,  entered  into 
negotiations  with  Sir  Wilfrid  Laurier,  Canadian  Prime  Minister, 
and  Sir  Louis  Davis,  Minister  of  Marine  and  Fisheries  in  the  Cana- 
dian Cabinet,  for  the  purpose  of  agreeing,  "if  possible,  upon  some 
tentative  method  of  settlement  of  the  fur-seal  question,"  and  in  the 
course  of  the  negotiations  various  other  unsettled  questions  between 
the  United  States  and  Canada  were  discussed.      {Id.,  p.  320.) 

It  was  proposed  at  that  time  by  General  Foster  that  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain — 

"agree  at  once  to  a  modus  viveiidi  providing  for  a  complete  suspen- 
sion of  the  killing  of  seals  in  all  the  waters  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  and 
Bering  Sea  for  one  year  from  December,  1897,  and  for  a  suspension 
of  all  killing  of  seals  on   the    Pribilof  Islands  for  the   same  period." 

It  was  also  proposed  that  a  joint  conference  be  held — 

"to  take  up  for  consideration,  with  a  view  to  settlement  by  means 
of  treaty  stipulations,  the  fur-seal  question,  the  protection  of  fish  in 
the  waters  of  rivers  and  lakes  contiguous  to  the  United  States  and 
Canada,  the  subject  of  reciprocal  immigration,  commercial  reci- 
procity, or  any  other  unsettled  question  between  the  United  States 
and  Canada  which  either  of  the  Governments  may  see  proper  to 
bring  forward."      {Id.,  pp.  320,  321.) 

The  latter  part  of  this  {proposition  was  stated  to  be  entirely 
acceptable  by  the  Canadian  representatives,  but  as  it  was  made  con- 
ditional upon  their  consent  to  a  temporary  suspension  of  pelagic 
sealing  pending  the  result  of  the  negotiations,  they  were  forced  to 
decline,  for  the  reason,  stated  by  Sir  Wilfrid  Laurier,  that — 

"The  prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing  for  a  year  wouki  practically 
destroy  tlie  business  for  several  years,  because  the  masters,  the 
mates,  and  the  white  crews,  for  the  larger  part  belonging  to  other 
{jarts  of  Canada,  would  leave  British  Columbia.  The  sum  wliich 
would  likely  be  demanded  as  compensation  is  far  beyond  what  it 
would  be  possible  for  us  to  induce  Parliament  to  vole,  even  if  we 
could  recommend  it."     (A/.,  p.  321.) 


34 

A  general  conference  on  all  unsettled  questions  without  a  sus- 
pension of  sealing  meanwhile  was  urged  instead  by  the  Canadians. 
{Id.,  p.  322.)      In  responding  General  Foster  said: 

"We  seem  to  have  failed  to  impress  upon  the  Canadian  Govern- 
ment, past  or  present,  our  view  that  pelagic  sealing  ought  to  be 
voluntarily  given  up  because  it  is  unneighborly  in  that  it  is  destroy- 
ing a  valuable  industry  of  our  Government,  and  inhumane  because 
it  is  exterminating  a  noble  race  of  animals  useful  to  the  world." 
{Id.,  p.  323.) 

And  also: 

"When  it  is  proposed  to  negotiate  for  the  surrender  of  the  legal 
right  of  pelagic  sealing,  we  are  told  that  this  can  not  be  brought 
about  by  a  fair  compensation  to  those  engaged  in  the  industry,  but 
that  the  question  must  be  included  with  a  number  of  other  subjects 
having  no  relation  to  it  whatever,  and  that  it  must  await  the  fate  of 
all  these  matters,  some  of  which,  as  commercial  reciprocity  and  the 
tariff,  are  very  complex  in  their  character,  and  others,  as  the  north- 
eastern sea  fisheries,  of  long  standing  and  very  difficult  of  adjust- 
ment."    {Id,  p.  324.) 

These  negotiations  were  not  carried  further  at  that  time,  but  were 
subsequently  renewed  and  led  to  the  meeting  in  1898  of  the  Joint 
High  Commission  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  for 
the  discussion  of  all  unsettled  Canadian  questions. 


PROPOSAL   BY  THE  UNITED   STATES   FOR  A  JOINT  CONFERENCE 
WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN,  JAPAN,  AND  RUSSIA  IN  1897. 

In  the  summer  of  1897  the  United  States  invited  Great  Britain, 
Japan,  and  Russia  to  meet  at  Washington  in  October  of  that  year 
for  the  purpose  of  considering  and  agreeing  upon  measures  for  the 
better  protection  of  the  fur  seals. 

Hon.  John  W.  Foster,  former  Secretary  of  State,  went  as  a  spe- 
cial ambassador  to  arrange  with  Great  Britain  and  Russia  to  par- 
ticipate in  this  conference,  and  Hon.  Charles  S.  Hamlin  went  on  a 
special  mission  to  Japan  for  the  same  purpose. 

Mr.  Foster's  report  of  the  result  of  his  mission  was  filed  in  the 
Department  of  State  on  August  7,  1897. 

In  this  report  it  is  stated  that  Count  Mouravieff,  the  Russian 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  had  announced  "that  his  Government 
would  be  ready  to  cooperate  with  the  United  States  for  the  adoption 
of  such  measures  as  might  be  agreed  upon  for  their  common  benefit," 
and  had  directed  Professor  Martens,  the  president  of  a  commission 
then  recently  created  by  the  Emperor  for  the  study  of  the  seal  ques- 
tion, and  Mr.  Kotzebue,  the  Russian  minister  at  Washington,  then 


in  St.  Petersburg,  to  confer  with   Mr.  Foster  as  to  the  measures  to 
be  agreed  upon  by  the  two  Governments. 

The  following  programme  of  action  submitted  by  Mr.  Foster 
was  agreed  upon  by  these  gentlemen: 

"  I.  It  is  proposed  that  a  conference  be  held  in  Washington,  about 
October  i,  1897,  of  the  four  powers  interested  in  the  seal  question — 
to  wit,  the  United  States,  Russia,  Great  Britain,  and  Japan — for  the 
purpose  of  considering  and  agreeing  upon  the  measures  necessary 
for  the  better  protection  of  the  fur  seals  in  which  the  respective 
Governments  are  interested. 

"2.  If  Great  Britain  participates  in  the  conference,  an  effort  shall 
be  made  to  bring  about  an  agreement  for  an  absolute  prohibition  of 
pelagic  sealing  in  all  the  waters  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  and  Bering  Sea 
north  of  the  35th  degree  of  latitude  and  between  the  continents  of 
America  and  Asia. 

"3.  If  it  shall  be  found  not  possible  to  bring  about  an  agreement 
for  an  absolute  prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing,  an  effort  shall  be  made 
to  agree  upon  a  suspension  of  pelagic  sealing  for  a  period  of  five, 
or  at  least  three,  years,  with  provision  for  amended  regulations  for 
pelagic  sealing  thereafter. 

"4.  If  absolute  prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing  can  not  be  brought 
about,  then  it  shall  be  proposed  that  pelagic  sealing  be  prohibited 
from  the  ist  of  April  to  October  15,  and,  at  the  least,  from  May  i  to 
October  15,  and  that  the  zone  about  the  Russian  and  Kurile  Islands 
be  increased  to  not  less  than  60  nautical  miles. 

"5.  Finally,  if  neither  of  the  foregoing  propositions  can  be 
agreed  upon,  then  an  effort  shall  be  made  to  make  applicable  to  the 
entire  ocean  and  sea,  north  of  the  35th  degree  of  latitude  and  between 
the  two  continents,  the  regulations  adopted  by  the  Paris  Tribunal 
of  1893,  with  a  prohibited  area  of  not  less  than  60  nautical  miles 
around  all  the  seal  islands. 

"6.  In  case  of  a  failure  of  Great  Britain  to  participate  in  the 
conference,  or  to  agree  to  an  absolute  prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing, 
then,  and  in  either  case,  the  Governments  of  the  United  States,  Rus- 
sia, and  Japan  shall  agree  to  enact  the  necessary  laws  to  prohibit 
their  citizens  and  subjects  from  engaging  in  pelagic  sealing  and  to 
prevent  their  ports  from  being  used  for  the  purpose  of  fitting  out 
vessels  for  pelagic  sealing  or  the  landing  of  seal  skins  taken  in  the 
waters  named. 

"  7.  It  is  to  be  understood  that  if  one  of  the  above-named  powers 
enters  into  a  separate  agreement  with  another  of  them  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  foregoing  propositions,  that  agreement  shall  be  made 
applicable  to  and  be  enjoyed  by  the  other  powers  interested  in  the 
question. " 

Mr.  Foster  then  had  an  audience  with  the  Emperor,  Nicholas  II, 
who  advised  him  that  a  satisfactory  agreement  resi)ecting  the  seal 
question  could  undoubtedly  be  reached  with  his  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs.  (Jn  June  15  Count  Mouravieff  notified  Mr.  Foster  that  by 
order  of  the  Emperor  "the  Imperial   Government   adheres   to   the 


36' 

propositions  of  the  Federal  Government  enumerated  in  the  memo- 
randum above  mentioned,"  and  further  that  "the  Imperial  Govern- 
ment is  therefore  quite  disposed  to  participate  in  the  conference 
which  is  to  meet  about  October  i  at  Washington,"  adding:  "We  do 
not  object  that  the  conference  in  question  be  held,  even  if  the  British 
Government  should  refuse  to  participate."  During  the  conferences 
held  with  Messrs.  Martens  and  Kotzebue,  Mr.  Foster  had  informed 
them — 

"that  in  an  interview  which  our  ambassador,  Mr.  Hay,  had  held 
with  Mr.  Chamberlain,  British  Minister  for  the  Colonies,  the  latter 
had  suggested  that  it  appeared  to  him  the  best  settlement  of  the  seal 
question  was  to  pay  to  the  Canadian  sealers  an  agreed  sum  in  com- 
pensation for  the  absolute  surrender  of  their  right  to  pelagic  sealing. " 

Mr.  Foster  stated  to  them  that,  although  having  no  authority  to 
bind  his  Government  to  such  an  arrangement,  he  thought  it  worth 
while  to  consider  this  phase  of  the  subject  "for  the  purpose  of  con- 
currence of  views,  should  the  matter  arise  during  subsequent  nego- 
tiations with  Great  Britain." 

Shortly  thereafter  Mr.  Kotzebue  suggested  that  Mr.  Foster  pre- 
pare a  paper  on  the  subject  of  compensation  of  pelagic  sealers,  to  be 
read  at  the  Russian  Council  of  Ministers.  Mr.  Foster  accordingly 
prepared  and  submitted  to  him  the  following  paper,  at  the  same  time 
stating  to  him  that  the  views  therein  expressed  must  be  regarded  as 
unofficial  : 

"The  position  of  the  United  States  before  the  Paris  Tribunal  of 
Arbitration  was  that  no  pelagic  sealing  could  be  permitted  with  safety 
to  the  continued  existence  of  the  seal  herd.  The  operation  for  the 
past  three  years  of  the  regulations  adopted  by  that  tribunal  confirms 
the  correctness  of  the  position  of  the  United  States.  Doctor  Jordan, 
the  American  scientist,  and  others  who  have  made  a  study  of  the 
seals  agree  that  pelagic  sealing  must  be  stopped  entirely  or  the  herd 
will  be  ultimately  destroyed,  at  least  for  all  commercial  purposes. 

"The  past  two  years  have  not  proved  profitable  for  the  pelagic 
sealers,  as  the  number  of  seals  taken  in  the  water  has  largely  de- 
creased and  the  price  of  seal  skins  has  also  fallen  so  low  that  the 
business  has  ceased  to  be  profitable.  An  intimation  has  been  thrown 
out  from  London  recently  that  possibly,  under  the  circumstances,  a 
settlement  of  the  vexed  question  of  pelagic  sealing  might  be  reached 
by  the  payment  to  the  Canadian  Government,  through  that  of  Great 
Britain,  of  a  sum  sufficient  to  justify  the  owners  of  the  Canadian 
sealing  vessels  in  abandoning  the  business.  They  claim,  with  some 
show  of  reason,  that  the  taking  of  seals  in  the  water  having  been 
declared  a  legitimate  business  by  the  Paris  Tribunal,  they  ought  not 
to  be  deprived  of  it  without  some  compensation  by  the  interested 
Governments. 

"It  is  believed  that  the  Governments  of  Russia  and  the  United 
States  would  be  amply  justified  in   agreeing  to  this  claim,   if  the 


37 

amount  deinanded  should  not  be  excessive.  If  the  British  Govern- 
ment would  agree  to  absolutely  prohibit  its  subjects  from  engaging 
in  pelagic  sealing  and  adopt  the  necessar}^  measures  to  make  that 
prohibition  effective,  Russia  and  the  United  States  would  at  once  be 
relieved  from  the  necessity  of  maintaining  their  naval  and  other  ves- 
sels in  patrol  of  the  waters  along  their  coasts  and  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  seal  islands,  and  thereby  save  annually  a  large  sum  of  money. 
The  prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing  would  result  in  a  speedy  restora- 
tion of  the  seal  herd  to  its  normal  conditions  and  they  would  again 
yield  the  respective  Governments  a  valuable  revenue.  If  the  seals 
of  the  Russian  islands  should  be  thus  restored  they  would  yield  the 
Russian  Government,  at  the  rate  paid  by  the  lessees  of  the  Pribilof 
Islands  to  the  United  States,  the  approximate  sum  of  $600,000  an- 
nually for  an  indefinite  number  of  years.  Such  an  arrangement 
would  have  the  still  greater  political  advantage  of  settling  a  very 
troublesome  international  dispute. 

"It  is  estimated  that  the  total  cost  or  value  of  the  Canadian  ves- 
sels engaged  in  pelagic  sealing  would  not  exceed  $300,000  or 
$350,000,  and  it  might  fall  considerably  below  this  amount.  If  the 
Russian  Government  should  furnish  one-third  of  that  sum  (which 
would  be  approximatel}^  in  proportion  to  the  size  of  its  seal  herd 
compared  with  the  American  herd)  it  would  not  cost  the  imperial 
treasury  more  than  $100,000  or  $116,666.  If  the  two  Governments 
could  bring  about  a  permanent  settlement  of  this  ver}^  annoying 
business  at  such  a  comparatively  small  cost,  it  is  believed  it  would 
be  a  very  wise  and  economical  adjustment  of  the  question." 

During  his  visit  Mr.  Foster  also  had  a  conference  with  Mr.  Yer- 
moloff.  Minister  of  Imperial  Domains,  to  whose  Department  the 
Russian  seal  islands  pertain,  and  also  with  Mr.  Witte,  Minister  of 
Finance,  "both  of  whom  seemed  to  concur  in  the  desirability  of  a 
final  settlement  of  the  question  by  a  money  compensation  to  the 
Canadian  sealers  if  a  reasonable  sum  should  be  proposed."  It  does 
not  appear,  however,  that  any  official  action  was  taken  by  Russia  on 
this  proposition. 

Mr.  Foster  then  returned  to  London,  where  he  had  conferences 
with  Sir  Wilfrid  Laurier,  the  Canadian  Prime  Minister,  and  Sir 
Louis  Davies,  the  Canadian  Minister  of  Marine  and  Fisheries,  and 
also  with  Sir  Richard  Webster,  Attorney-General  of  the  British 
Ministry,  "the  result  of  which  was  that  an  agreement  was  reached 
that  the  British  and  Canadian  Governments  would  be  represented  at 
the  conference  which  under  the  agreement  with  the  Russian  Govern- 
ment was  to  be  held  at  Washington  in  October."  Subsequently, 
however,  Lord  Salisbury  informed  Mr.  Hay  (July  28,  1897;  Foreign 
Relations,  1897,  p.  300)  that  "  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  willing 
to  agree  to  a  meeting  of  experts  nominated  by  Great  Britain  and 
Canada  and  by  the  United  States  in  October,"  after  the  further 
investigations  then  undertaken  had  been  completed.  Lord  Salisbury 
was   promptly  advised    that  Russia  and   Japan  were  expected  to   be 


38 

represented  at  the  conference,  but  the  British  Government  declined 
to  take  part  in  a  general  conference  with  Japan  and  Russia  or  to 
admit  the  experts  of  those  countries  to  the  proposed  conference  of 
experts  from  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  which  was  held 
at  Washington  in  October  of  that  year  contemporaneously  with  the 
joint  conference  between  the  United  States,  Japan,  and  Russia. 

No  report  from  Mr.  Hamlin  of  his  mission  to  Japan  on  this  ques- 
tion has  been  found  in  the  records  of  the  Department  of  State. 


JOINT   CONFERENCE    BETWEEN    THE    UNITED    STATES,    JAPAN,    AND 
RUSSIA,   HELD  AT   WASHINGTON   IN  OCTOBER,   1897. 

On  October  3,  1897,  the  delegates  of  the  United  States,  Japan, 
and  Russia  met  at  the  Department  of  State  at  Washington.  These 
three  Governments  were  represented  respectively  as  follows: 

The  United  States,  by  John  W.  Foster,  Charles  S.  Hamlin,  and 
David  S.  Jordan. 

Japan,  by  Shiro  Fujita  and  Kakichi  Mitsukuri. 

Russia,  by  Gregoire  De  Wollant,  Pierre  Botkine,  and  M.  de 
Routkowsky. 

As  appears  from  the  protocols  of  the  conference  and  a  resume  of 
the  daily  proceedings  and  the  report  of  the  United  States  delegates, 
filed  in  the  Department  of  State  on  November  8,  1897,  the  course  of 
the  negotiations  was  as  follows: 

It  was  stated  at  the  outset  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  that  in 
inviting  the  Governments  of  Russia,  Japan,  and  Great  Britain  to  a 
conference  for  the  purpose  of  considering  and  agreeing  upon  meas- 
ures for  the  better  protection  of  the  fur  seal  in  which  these  Govern- 
ments were  interested,  it  had  been  intimated  that  if  Great  Britain 
should  decline  to  enter  upon  a  consideration  of  a  change  in  the  exist- 
ing regulations  or  other  propositions  submitted,  the  United  States 
would  propose  that  the  three  other  Governments  should  agree  to 
enact  the  necessary  laws  to  prohibit  their  citizens  and  subjects  from 
engaging  in  pelagic  sealing  or  the  landing  of  seal  skins  taken  in  the 
waters  named. 

The  United  States  accordingly  proposed  the  following  alterna- 
tive measures : 

"i.  An  agreement  for  an  absolute  prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing 
in  all  the  waters  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  and  Bering  Sea  north  of  the 
35th  degree  of  latitude  and  between  the  continents  of  America  and 
Asia. 

"2.  If  it  should  not  be  found  possible  to  bring  about  the  abso- 
lute prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing,  then  a  suspension  for  a  period  of 
five  or  three  years,  with  a  provision  for  amended  regulations 
thereafter. 


39 

"  3-  If  neither  of  these  measures  could  be  secured,  then  a  closed 
season  from  April  i  or  May  i  to  October  15,  with  a  zone  of  at  least 
60  miles  about  the  Russian  and  Japanese  seal  islands  and  an  exten- 
sion of  the  Paris  regulations  to  the  entire  ocean  and  sea. "  (Protocol 
II,  October  25,  1897.) 

On  behalf  of  Russia,  Mr.  Botkine  stated: 

"After  careful  examination  on  behalf  of  my  Government  I  wish 
to  make  the  statement  that  Russia  approves  the  proposition  of  the 
United  States  for  the  abolition  of  pelagic  sealing  in  Bering  Sea  and 
the  North  Pacific  Ocean  north  of  latitude  35°.  I  simply  make  this 
statement  now,  reserving  the  right  to  discuss  the  details  at  a  later 
time."     {Abstract  of  Discussion,  October  25,  1897.) 

The  delegates  of  Japan  found  themselves  unable  to  agree  to  the 
proposition  of  the  United  States.  The  position  of  Japan  was  stated 
at  some  length  b\^  Mr.  Fujita  and  may  be  briefly  summarized  as 
follows: 

There  was  no  difference  of  opinion  about  the  desirability  of 
establishing  some  system  of  concerted  protection,  and  the  only 
question  was  the  means  which  the  several  Governments  possessed  of 
promoting  the  desired  end. 

The  proposition  to  agree  to  the  absolute  prohibition  of  pelagic 
sealing  presented  a  twofold  difficulty  to  Japan.  In  the  first  place, 
the  existing  policy  of  the  Government,  supported  by  a  strong  public 
sentiment,  was  to  encourage  deep-sea  fishing,  which  included  pelagic 
sealing,  and,  in  the  second  place,  the  consular  jurisdiction  then  in 
force  of  foreign  powers  over  their  own  subjects  in  Japan  made  it 
practically  impossible  to  enforce  any  restrictions  against  the  use  of 
Japanese  ports  and  the  violation  of  protective  regulations  by  foreign 
sealing  vessels. 

The  protection  of  the  fur  seal  was  not  a  new  subject  in  Japan. 
As  early  as  1884  a  proclamation  was  issued  forbidding  the  killing  of 
fur  seals  and  sea  otter  except  under  Government  licenses,  and  in 
1888  an  exclusive  license  was  issued  to  a  Japanese  company  for  a 
period  of  five  years.  During  this  period  the  Canadian  and 
American  pelagic  sealers  were  excluded  from  Bering  Sea  by  the 
agreements  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  com- 
menced sealing  in  Asiatic  waters  and  raiding  the  Japanese  seal  rook- 
eries. On  account  of  the  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  existence  of 
consular  jurisdiction  no  efficient  method  of  protection  could  be 
enforced. 

In  consequence,  the  Japanese  sealing  interests  were  greatly  in- 
jured and  there  was  no  longer  any  advantage  to  Jaj^an  in  prohibiting 
pelagic  sealing.      For  that  reason,  as  well  as  because  of  the  pressure 


40 

of  public  sentiment  that  deep-sea  fishing  should  be  encouraged,  the 
Government  enacted  a  fisheries. law  which,  by  means  of  a  bounty- 
granted  to  certain  classes  of  fishing  vessels,  indirectly  assisted  pelagic 
sealing.  The  bounty  paid  was  5  yen,  or  $2.50,  per  ton  for  sailing 
vessels  up  to  200  tons  and  for  steam  vessels  up  to  350  tons,  no  ad- 
ditional allowance  being  made  for  higher  tonnage.  Meanwhile,  the 
Government  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  then  existing  law 
should  be  modified  and  an  endeavor  should  be  made  to  arrive  at 
some  understanding  with  other  powers  to  protect  the  seals  and  sea 
otter  more  effectively.  To  this  end  scientific  experts  were  sent  out 
in  1893  and  1894  to  study  sealing  conditions  on  the  islands  and 
foreign  hunting  on  the  coasts,  and  as  a  result  a  law  was  promul- 
gated in  1895  vesting  in  the  Government  the  power  of  prescribing 
restrictions  as  regards  the  period  of  hunting,  the  hunting  grounds, 
the  sex  of  the  seals  to  be  killed,  and  the  instruments  of  capture. 
Under  this  law  the  Government  was  prepared  to  enforce  the  neces- 
sary measures  regulating  pelagic  sealing  in  case  an  international 
arrangement  was  agreed  to. 

It  would  be  impossible,  however,  for  Japan  to  enter  into  any 
agreement  absolutely  prohibiting  pelagic  sealing  unless  Great  Brit- 
ain was  a  party,  particularty  so  long  as  consular  jurisdiction  con- 
tinued. Japan  could  hardly  be  expected  to  prohibit  its  subjects 
from  pelagic  sealing  while  foreigners  were  permitted  to  freely  en- 
gage in  it.  On  the  other  hand,  even  if  Great  Britain  joined  in  the 
agreement,  as  the  matter  then  stood  Japan  would  derive  no  particu- 
lar advantage  to  compensate  it  for  the  loss  which  its  sealers  would 
suffer.  All  the  seal  rookeries  within  Japanese  territory  had  been  so 
greatly  depleted  that  even  the  most  sanguine  of  the  experts  doubted 
the  possibility  of  restoring  them  to  a  paying  basis,  except  at  an 
expense  to  which  the  results  obtained  would  be  not  at  all  commen- 
surate." Furthermore,  public  sentiment  was  strongly  in  favor  of 
pelagic  sealing  and  the  policy  of  the  Government  had  been  to 
encourage  it,  in  consequence  of  which  a  small  fleet  of  sealing  vessels 
had  been  built  up  in  good  faith,  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  deny 
them  the  advantages  which  under  existing  laws  they  reasonably  had 
the  right  to  expect. 

Nevertheless,  the  Japanese  Government  did  not  favor  unrestrained 
pelagic  sealing.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  prepared  to  recommend 
reasonable  and  proper  measures  for  the  control  of  pelagic  sealing. 
They  believed,  however,  that  any  agreement  which  the  conference 
decided  upon  should  not  be  enforced  until  Great  Britain  consented 
to  unite  in  its  observance.  (Abstract  of  Discussion,  October  26, 
1897.)  With  this  understanding  they  proposed,  ad  }-efe7-endu}n^  the 
following  proposition: 


41 

"i.  The  absolute  prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing  in  Bering  Sea, 
including  the  sea  about  the  Commander  Islands. 

"2.  A  close  season  in  the  Pacific  Ocean  from  the  American  coast 
to  the  iSoth  degree  of  east  longitude,  the  said  season  to  extend  from 
May  I  to  October  15. 

"■3.  A  close  season  in  the  Pacific  Ocean  from  the  Japanese  coast 
to  the  i8oth  degree  of  east  longitude,  the  said  season  to  extend  from 
June  15  to  December  31. 

"It  was  to  be  stipulated  that  whatever  restrictions  were  established 
for  the  Pribilof  and  Commander  Islands  should  also  extend  to  four 
of  the  Kurile  group — Sredonoi,  Musir,  Raikoke,  and  Broughton 
Islands.  The  enforcement  of  any  arrangement  growing  out  of  this 
proposition  was  also  to  be  conditioned  upon  the  assent  of  Great 
Britain  to  it."     (Protocol  III,  October  26,  1897.) 

After  a  full  discussion  it  was  found  that  the  delegates  of  the 
United  States  and  Russia  could  not  accept  the  proposition  of  Japan. 
This  discussion  also  dealt  largely  with  the  question  of  extraterri- 
toriality, which  has  since  been  removed  (in  1899),  so  that  it  is  not 
now  necessary  to  go  into  that  part  of  it.  It  is  important  to  note, 
however,  that  Mr.  Fujita  stated,  in  the  course  of  the  discussion, 
that  the  prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing  by  Japan  would  require  the 
enactment  of  a  new  law.      On  this  point  he  said  : 

"Under  the  present  law  the  Government  has  the  right  to  pre- 
scribe the  time,  place,  sex,  and  method  of  capture,  but  the  spirit  of 
the  law  is  not  prohibitive.      Another  act  would  be  necessary." 

At  the  session  on  the  following  day  (October  27,  1897)  Mr. 
Foster  presented,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  for  consideration 
by  the  conference,  the  following  proposition  : 

"The  Governments  of  the  United  States,  Japan,  and  Russia 
agree  to  a  modus  z/Z^r/z^// suspending  all  pelagic  hunting  of  fur  seals 
and  sea  otter  during  the  coming  season  of  1898;  and  they  further 
agree  to  unite  in  an  invitation  to  Great  Britain  to  meet  them  in  a 
conference  for  the  consideration  of  adequate  protection  of  the  fur 
seals  and  sea  otter,  and  to  ask  that  she  join  in  suspending  pelagic 
hunting  for  the  coming  season  or  until  the  conference  has  concluded 
its  labors."     (Protocol  IV,  October  27,  1897.) 

Mr.  Fujita,  on  the  part  of  the  delegates  of  Japan,  stated  that  they 
were  unable  to  accept  this  proposition.  The  reasons  were,  briefiy, 
that  owing  to  the  difficult  position  in  which  the  Government  of 
Japan  was  placed  it  would  be  very  hard  to  secure  a  modus  prohibiting 
pelagic  sealing  even  for  (;ne  year.  He  pointed  out,  moreover,  that  the 
pelagic  sealing  done  by  the  Japanese  was  small  compared  willi  that 
done  by  other  nations,  and  that  the  danger  from  that  source  was 
very  slight.      He  felt  that  Japan   had  gone  as  far  as  circumstances 


42 

would  permit  in  making  the  proposition  submitted  by  him ;  that  the 
general  attitude  of  the  Japanese  Government  was  that  it  should  be 
passive  in  the  matter  and  should  not  join  even  in  inviting  other 
nations  to  do  anything.  Their  breeding  grounds  had  been  de- 
stroyed, and  the  initiative  should  be  taken  by  the  United  States  and 
Russia  as  the  owners  of  breeding  grounds  of  value,  and  Japan 
could  act  only  after  Great  Britain  had  assented.  (Abstract  of  Dis- 
cussion, October  27,  1897.) 

After  some  discussion  Mr.  Foster,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States^ 
submitted  the  following  proposition: 

"The  Governments  of  the  United  States,  Japan,  and  Russia 
agree  to  suspend  all  pelagic  hunting  of  the  fur  seal  and  sea  otter  dur- 
ing the  coming  season  of  1898,  with  a  view  to  an  international  con- 
ference for  securing  adequate  protection  of  these  animals. 

"This  agreement  is  to  take  effect  as  soon  as  the  adhesion  of 
Great  Britain  shall  be  given  thereto." 

The  Russian  delegates  signified  their  approval  of  this  proposi- 
tion, expressing  the  wish,  however,  to  communicate  with  their 
Government  on  the  subject.  The  Japanese  delegates  undertook  to 
submit  the  proposition  to  their  Government  and  to  report  the  answer 
at  the  next  meeting.      (Protocol  IV,  October  27,  1897.) 

During  the  discussion  it  appeared  that  the  Japanese  delegates 
were  apprehensive  that  Great  Britain  might  be  induced  to  adhere 
to  the  proposition  for  the  suspension  of  sealing  only  upon  condition 
of  a  money  compensation  or  other  valuable  consideration,  and  under 
such  circumstances  felt  that  they  should  not  be  asked  to  agree  upon 
less  advantageous  terms.  At  their  request,  therefore,  the  United 
States  delegates  gave  them  a  written  assurance  that  should  a  com- 
pensation be  paid  to  induce  the  adherence  of  Great  Britain  an 
equivalent  consideration  should  be  granted  to  Japan.  The  Russian 
delegates  made  no  objection  to  this  arrangement,  but  took  no  part 
in  it. 

With  this  understanding  the  Japanese  Government  consented  to 
the  proposition  then  under  consideration,  and  an  agreement  was 
entered  into  on  November  6,  1897,  by  the  representatives  of  these 
three  countries  prohibiting  the  killing  of  the  fur  seal  and  sea  otter 
in  all  the  waters  of  the  North  Pacific  Ocean,  including  the  seas  of 
Bering,  Okhotsk,  and  Kamchatka  outside  the  territorial  limits,  for 
the  period  of  one  year  from  its  date,  on  condition,  however,  that  it 
should  not  take  effect  unless  the  adhesion  of  the  Government  of 
Great  Britain  was  given.  This  agreement  contained  a  declaration 
that   under  the   existing    regulations  the  fur   seals  were    threatened 


43 

with  extinction,  and  that  an  international  agreement  of  all  the  inter- 
ested powers  was  necessary  for  their  adequate  protection,  which  was 
regarded  at  that  time  as  an  important  step  in  the  direction  of  the 
final  settlement  of  the  question. 

Pursuant  to  the  understanding  in  regard  to  compensation,  a  let- 
ter, of  which  the  following  is  a  copy,  was  given  by  the  United  States 
delegates  to  the  Japanese  as  part  of  the  agreement: 

"Department  of  State, 

'"''Washingto/i,  November  6,  iSgy. 

"Hon.  Shiro  Fujita, 
"Prof.  Kakichi  Mitsukuri, 

'■'Delegates  of  Japan  to  the  International  Fur- Seal  Conference. 

"Gentlemen:  In  response  to  your  inquiry  we  take  pleasure  in 
stating  that  should  the  adhesion  of  Great  Britain  be  secured  to  the 
convention  this  da)^  signed  by  us  and  the  delegates  of  Russia  pro- 
viding for  a  suspension  of  seal  and  sea-otter  hunting  for  the  coming 
season  of  1898,  and  should  this  adhesion  be  accompanied  by  a  modi- 
fication of  the  terms  of  the  said  convention  or  by  compensation  for 
such  suspension  apart  from  such  modification,  in  such  case  the  same 
or  equivalent  modifications  or  compensation  should  be  granted  to 
Japan.  It  is  to  be  understood,  however,  that  this  assurance  only 
applies  to  the  proposed  arrangement  for  the  coming  season,  and  not 
to  a  permanent  settlement  of  the  question  involved. 
"Very  respectfully, 

"John  W.  Foster. 

"David  Starr  Jordan. 

"Charles  S.  Hamlin." 

This  conditional  treaty  was  submitted  by  both  the  American  and 
Russian  ambassadors  in  London  to  the  British  Government,  with  an 
invitation  to  adhere  thereto,  which  was  declined  by  Lord  Salisbury. 
By  its  terms  this  treaty  terminated  with  the  expiration  of  the  year 
from  its  date,  and  the  contingent  liability  undertaken  by  the  United 
States  with  respect  to  the  compensation  to  be  paid  to  Japan  termi- 
nated at  the  same  time. 

The  reason  for  the  refusal  of  the  British  Government  to  adiiere 
to  this  agreement  was  stated  by  Lord  Salisbury,  in  his  letter  of  Jan- 
uary 12,  1898,  to  Mr.  Hay,  which  closed  the  correspondence  on  the 
subject,  as  follows: 

"It  has  been  the  wish  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  that  an 
agreement  should  be  arrived  at  on  the  seal-fishery  question,  as  well 
as  on  other  matters  pending  between  the  United  States  and  Canada, 
but  they  can  not  in  the  present  circumstances  adhere  to  the  conven- 
tion, which  would  inflict  a  serious  injury  on  Her  Majesty's  Canadian 


44 

subjects,  and  which  in  their  opinion  is  not  required  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  seals  in  the  open  sea,  while  it  makes  no  provision  for 
restricting  the  destruction  of  the  seals  on  the  Pribilof  Islands  by 
the  American  company." 

Upon  inquiry  at  the  Foreign  Office  it  was  subsequently  stated, 
as  reported  by  Mr.  White  on  February  15,  1898,  "that  suspension  of 
killing  seals  on  Pribilof  Islands  during  cessation  of  pelagic  sealing 
would  not  suffice  to  remove  grounds  of  the  British  Government's 
refusal  to  accede  to  the  convention." 

Meanwhile,  the  joint  conclusions  of  the  expert  scientists  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  who  were  in  conference  in  Washing- 
ton contemporaneously  with  the  sessions  of  the  conference  between 
the  United  States,  Japan,  and  Russia,  were  announced,  and  upon 
Great  Britain's  refusal  to  join  with  the  other  powers  in  suspending 
pelagic  sealing,  negotiations  for  the  revision  of  the  Paris  award  regu- 
lations at  the  expiration  of  the  first  five-year  period  were  renewed. 
These  negotiations  resulted  in  the  organization  of  the  Joint  High 
Commission  of  1898  for  the  consideration  of  this  question  and  all 
other  unsettled  questions  between  the  United  States  and  Canada. 

CONSIDERATION    OF    THIS    QUESTION    BY    THE   JOINT    HIGH 
COMMISSION— 1898-99. 

A  settlement  of  this  question  was  substantially  agreed  upon  by 
the  Joint  High  Commission  of  1898-99. 

On  the  part  of  the  United  States  it  was  insisted,  as  it  always  had 
been,  that  the  only  adequate  and  effective  measure  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  fur  seal  was  the  total  prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing. 
Great  Britain  and  Canada  thereupon  proposed  that  the  United 
States  compensate  the  sealers  forgiving  up  their  business,  and  also 
compensate  the  Canadian  Government  for  relinquishing  the  national 
right  of  sealing.  It  was  finally  agreed  that  the  United  States  should 
make  a  cash  payment  as  compensation  for  those  engaged  in  the  seal- 
ing industry,  and  should  also  give  an  annual  percentage  of  the  gross 
receipts  from  the  sealing  business  for  the  surrender  of  the  national 
right.  The  amounts  were  not  determined.  For  the  cash  payment 
the  United  States  tentatively  proposed  $500,000  and  Canada  asked 
$750,000,  and  for  the  percentage  10  per  cent  was  proposed  and  25  per 
cent  was  asked.  A  draft  article  embodying  this  plan  was  prepared, 
with  the  amounts  left  blank,  and  it  was  expected  that  the  differences 
would  be  adjusted,  but  the  proceedings  of  the  Joint  High  Commis- 
sion were  suspended  at  this  point,  on  account  of  the  disagreement 
on  the  Alaskan  boundary  question. 


45 

DIPLOMATIC    NEGOTIATIONS    SINCE    THE    ADJOURNMENT    OF    THE 
JOINT  HIGH  COMMISSION  IN   1S99. 

After  the  adjournment  of  the  Joint  High  Commission  in  1899, 
except  for  occasional  bills  and  resolutions  introduced  in  Congress 
proposing  regulations  ranging  all  the  way  from  prohibiting  all  kill- 
ing of  seals  on  the  islands  to  killing  off  all  but  enough  to  form  a 
nucleus  for  breeding  purposes,  none  of  which  was  finally  adopted, 
the  sealing  question  was  held  in  abeyance  until  after  the  treaty  of 
January  24,  1903,  was  entered  into,  providing  for  the  settlement 
of  the  Alaskan  boundary  question. 

On  July  27,  1903,  Secretary  Hay  wrote  to  the  British  ambassador 
proposing  the  article  tentatively  agreed  upon  by  the  Joint  High 
Commission,  "with  some  needful  verbal  changes,"  as  a  draft  of  the 
essential  features  of  a  convention  for  the  prohibition  of  pelagic  seal- 
ing. This  article,  he  stated,  appeared  to  cover  the  subject  fully  and 
in  its  present  shape  "would  be  entirely  acceptable  to  this  Govern- 
ment." The  verbal  changes  referred  to  in  no  way  alter  the  general 
scheme  of  the  article,  and  the  amount  of  compensation  and  percent- 
age of  receipts  was  still  left  blank. 

Accompanying  this  proposal  was  a  memorandum  presenting  "in 
convenient  form  the  facts  now  established  to  show  the  disastrous 
effects  of  unrestricted  pelagic  sealing  and  the  rapid  diminution  of 
the  fur-seal  herds  to  the  verge  of  their  commercial  extinction."" 

This  memorandum  quoted  Mr.  Henry  W.  Elliott  as  authority  for 
the  statement  that  the  Pribilof  Islands  herd  had  dwindled  from 
4,700,000  seals  of  all  classes  in  1874  to  a  scant  million  in  1890  "as 
the  result  of  pelagic  sealing  and  the  killing  of  seals  on  the  islands," 
giving  details  showing  the  disastrous  result  of  unchecked  pelagic 
sealing. 

The  memorandum  also  calls  attention  to  the  proven  ineffective- 
ness of  the  Paris  award  regulations  "to  secure  the  Pribilof  seal  herds 
from  ravages  of  pelagic  sealing  which  threaten,  at  no  distant  day, 
their  utter  destruction  for  commercial  purposes."  The  joint  conclu- 
sions of  the  conference  of  experts  of  the  United  States,  Great  Britain, 
and  Canada  in  1897  are  cited  in  confirmation  of  the  position  held  by 
the  United  States  that  these  regulations  are  entirely  inadequate  and 
that  the  notable  decrease  in  the  size  of  the  herd  has  been  brought 
about  entirely  by  pelagic  sealing,  which  involves  the  excessive  kill- 
ing of  the  females  and  consequent  loss  of  the  young. 

Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan,  one  of  the  members  of  this  joint  commis- 
sion of  experts,  is  also  quoted  in  support  of  this  proposition,  show- 
ing that  in  his  opinion  the  responsibility  for  the  decrease  of  the  seal 
herd  rests  entirely  upon  pelagic  sealing  and  that  the  joint  report  of 


46 

the  experts  in  1897  establishes  that  the  methods  of  killing  on  land 
are  not  even  in  part  responsible. 

No  reply  was  received  to  the  proposal  made  in  this  letter,  which 
was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  Sir  Michael  Herbert,  the  Brit- 
ish ambassador,  died  in  the  autumn  of  1903  before  returning  to 
Washington. 

At  the  following  session  of  Congress  an  act  was  passed  (April  8, 
1904)  appropriating  such  amounts  as  might  be  necessary  for  investi- 
gations and  procuring  information  on  the  seal  question  and  under- 
taking diplomatic  negotiations  with  a  view  to  an  international 
agreement  for  the  protection  and  preservation  of  the  seals. 

Under  the  authority  of  this  act  Mr.  Hay  took  up  the  question 
again,  and  in  concurrence  with  the  views  expressed  by  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Territories,  in  a  memorandum  submitted  by  them,  he 
proposed  to  the  British  ambassador,  Sir  Mortimer  Durand,  in  his 
letter  of  February  28,  1905,  a  suggestion  for  the  modification  of  the 
Paris  award  regulations.  With  this  letter  a  memorandum  was  sub- 
mitted following  substantially  the  argument  of  the  memorandum  of 
the  Senate  Committee.  It  was  there  shown  that  pelagic  sealing  in 
the  open  months  of  August  and  September  is  particularly  cruel  as 
well  as  destructive  to  the  herd,  owing  to  starvation  of  the  seal  pups 
whose  mothers  are  killed  while  ranging  the  sea  for  food.  It  was 
further  shown  that  the  Governments  are  not  limited  under  the  Paris 
award  to  the  five-year  periods  for  revising  the  regulations,  but  may 
exercise  the  right  of  revision  at  any  time  by  common  consent.  It 
was  therefore  proposed  that  the  regulations  be  revised  at  once  as 
follows: 

"Two  ways  appear  in  which  to  meet  the  disastrous  conditions 
which  arise  from  the  regulations  in  question: 

"A.  To  change  the  closed  season  prescribed  by  article  2  so  as  to 
embrace  the  average  period  from  the  birth  of  the  sealing  pup  to  its 
weaning. 

"  B.  To  enlarge  the  zone  of  absolute  prohibition  about  the  Pribi- 
lof  Islands  sufficiently  to  permit  of  the  nursing  mother  seals  ranging 
safely  in  search  of  food. 

"The  latter  alternative,  requiring  a  great  enlargement  of  the  pro- 
hibitive zone,  would  involve  a  corresponding  increase  of  the  closed 
areas,  and  greatly,  if  not  impracticably,  augment  the  task  of  effective 
patrol. 

"On  the  other  hand,  to  extend  the  closed  season  of  pelagic  seal- 
mg  to  five  months  instead  of  three  would  work  obvious  hardship  to 
law-abiding  seal  hunters,  owing  to  the  conditions  of  navigation  in  the 
far  northern  seas.      This  may  be  averted  by  a  rational  compromise. 

"The  foregoing  considerations  move  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  propose  the  amendment  of  the  concurrent  regula- 
tions so  as  to  open  the  now  closed  months  of  May  and  June  to  the 
pelagic  hunter,  when  the  slaughter  of  the  adult  female  seal  merely 


47 

involves  the  sacrifice  of  the  unborn  offspring;  and  to  close  to  him 
the  months  of  August  and  September,  which  are  now  open  to  his 
hunting  with  the  result  of  cruel  and  unjustifiable  destruction  of  the 
nursing  seal  b\'  starvation. 

"It  is  therefore  proposed  that  article  2  be  changed  b}-  common 
agreement  to  read  as  follows:     • 

"'Article  2.  The  two  Governments  shall  forbid  their  citizens 
and  subjects,  respectively,  to  kill,  capture,  or  pursue,  in  any  manner 
whatever,  during  the  season  extending  each  year  from  the  ist  of 
July  to  the  31st  of  September,  both  inclusive,  the  fur  seals  on  the 
high  sea.  in  the  part  of  the  Pacific  Ocean,  inclusive  of  the  Bering 
Sea,  which  is  situated  to  the  north  of  the  35th  degree  of  north  lati- 
tude, and  eastward  of  the  180th  degree  of  longitude  from  Greenwich 
till  it  strikes  the  water  boundary  described  in  article  i  of  the  Treaty 
of  1867  between  the  United  States  and  Russia,  and  following  that 
line  up  to  Bering  Straits.' 

"It  is  earnestly  desired  that  an  agreement  on  this  point  ma}-  be 
reached  at  an  early  day,  so  as  to  become  effective  during  the  present 
pelagic  season. " 

Within  a  month  after  this  proposition  was  submitted  the  United 
States  consul  at  Victoria,  British  Columbia,  reported  (March  27, 
1905)  that  he  had  received  information  from  the  managers  of  the 
Sealing  Company  there  that  an  official  communication  had  been 
received  from  the  Canadian  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Fisheries  at 
Ottawa  asking  if  the  company  would  be  willing  to  accede  to  this 
proposition,  and  that  the  directors  of  the  company  had  met,  aiui, 
after  discussion,  had  decided  that  the  proposition  was  not  accepta- 
ble, and  the  company  had  emphatically  declined  to  willingly  accede 
to  such  agreement. 

Thereafter,  on  Octobers,  1905,  the  British  ambassador  answered, 
declining  to  accept  the  proposition.      The  reason  assigned  was  that — 

"The  Government  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  after  due  consid- 
eration with  the  Department  interested,  are  of  opinion  that  the  pres- 
ent restrictions  imposed  upon  pelagic  sealing  as  the  result  of  the 
Paris  award  are  a  sufficient  protection  to  the  seals,  and  they  consider 
that  any  further  restrictions  would  have  the  effect  of  destroying  the 
Canadian  sealing  industry. 

******* 

"  In  view  (^f  these  circumstances  the  Canadian  (Government  regret 
that  they  are  unable  to  agree  to  the  new  proposal,"  etc. 

On  March  17,  1905,  Senators  Dillingham,  Nelson,  and  Burnham, 
of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Territories,  wrote  to  the  Secretary  ol 
Commerce  and  Labor,  stating  that  in  their  opinion  llie  cooperation 
of  the  Canadian  Government  was  necessary  for  the  settlement  ol 
the  question,  and  that  in  order  to  secure  such  cooperation  conces- 
sions   must    be    made.      Tiiey    inclosed    a    memoiauduni    i'inl)o(l\ing 


48 

their  ideas  with  regard  to  the  material  concessions  which  should  be 
agreed  to,  and  suggested  that  it  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Brit- 
ish ambassador,  with  a  full  descriptive  text  showing  the  recupera- 
tive capacity  of  the  herd. 

This  memorandum  was  as  follows: 

(I) 

^'Memorandum,  from  the  American  point  of  vieiv,  as  to  an  Anglo-American 
Joint  control  of  the  killing  of  the  Pribilof  fur-seal  herd,  with  special 
regard  to  its  restoration  and  economic  value. 

"I.  Under  existing  laws  and  regulations  the  Pribilof  fur-seal 
herd  will  be  so  diminished  by  1906  that  its  care  and  maintenance 
thereafter  will  constitute  an  annual  charge  and  burden  upon  the 
public  treasury  and  also  include  the  support  of  some  three  hundred 
natives  of  the  aforesaid  Pribilof  Islands. 

"II.  Without  the  cooperation  of  Canada  this  fur-seal  herd  can 
not  be  restored  to  its  natural  full  form  and  number.  Unless  it  is  so 
restored,  it  is  of  no  value  to  us.  The  seal  islands  of  Alaska  are 
barren  of  all  agriculture  and  of  mineral  lands,  with  no  fish  or  fisheries, 
and  lay  far  out  of  the  path  of  commerce. 

"III.  We  can  not  reasonably  expect  the  Canadian  Government 
to  unite  with  us  unless  we  make  certain  concessions.  These  con- 
cessions must  be  of  a  character  which  the  Canadian  Government 
can  accept  as  a  positive  gain  to  it  over  existing  conditions,  and  so 
publish  that  fact  to  its  own  people. 

"IV.  We  can  not  buy  the  rights  of  British  subjects  vested  in 
pelagic  sealing,  but  we  can  share  our  rights  with  their  rights  in  a 
joint  control  of  the  killing  of  this  fur-seal  life  on  the  land  and  in  the 
sea. 

.  "V.  We  can  have  this  joint  control  without  a  waiver  of  our  sov- 
ereignty on  the  Pribilof  Islands.  We  can  arrange  it  as  specified  in 
Articles  II  and  III  of  the  following  memorandum: 

(2) 

'"'' Memorandum,  from  the  British  point  of  view,  as  to  an  Anglo-American 
Joint  control  of  the  killing  of  the  Pribilof  fur-seal  herd,  with  special 
regard  for  its  restoration  and  econo?nic  value. 

"I.  Under  existing  rules  and  regulations  the  Pribilof  fur-seal 
herd  will  be  so  diminished  in  number  that  the  pelagic  hunting  of 
that  herd  by  the  end  of  1906  will  cease  to  be  profitable  for  the  fleet 
now  engaged  in  that  business,  and  its  importance  as  an  industry  will 
end.  Four  or  five  vessels,  out  of  the  twenty-two  now  engaged,  will 
continue  to  hang  on  the  flanks  of  the  remnant  of  that  herd,  annu- 
ally, and  secure  a  small  annual  catch  of  a  few  thousand  seals  into 
the  indefinite  future. 

"II.  If  the  Canadian  Government  unites  with  that  of  the  United 
States  in  a  joint  control  of  the  killing  of  this  Pribilof  fur-seal  herd, 
on  the  land  and  in  the  sea,  then  the  small  nucleus  of  it,  now  alive, 
can  be  restored  to  its  natural  fine  form  and  number  in  ten  or  twelve 


49 

years  from  date,  if  all  killing  on  the  islands  and  in  the  sea  is  sus- 
pended by  joint  agreement  to  that  end  by  the  two  Governments 
aforesaid. 

"Then  when  this  herd,  by  natural  agencies,  is  fully  restored  to 
its  normal  form  and  number  an  annual  killing  of  the  surplus  young 
male  life  can  be  done  on  the  islands,  and  only  by  agents  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States.  A  Canadian  inspector  should  be  resi- 
dent on  the  islands,  and  his  certificate  as  to  the  work  done  and  of 
the  number  of  skins  taken  annually  shall  go  with  those  of  the  Ameri- 
can agents  from  the  islands  and  be  of  equal  official  warrant  and 
record  value.  The  skins  shall  be  sold  at  public  auction,  in  the  best 
market  of  the  world,  and  in  strict  accord  with  the  established  usage 
of  the  fur  trade. 

"III.  The  Canadian  Government  should  bear,  say,  25  per  cent 
of  the  amount  of  the  annual  cost  of  maintenance  of  the  care  and 
conservation  of  the  herd  when  killing  is  resumed  on  the  land,  and  it 
should  receive,  say,  25  per  cent  of  the  annual  net  proceeds  from  the 
sale  of  all  skins  sold  when  taken  from  the  islands. 

"The  cost  and  maintenance,  including  support  of  the  natives, 
will  not  exceed  $50,000  annually;  the  entire  cost  of  the  transship- 
ment of  the  skins  to  London  from  the  islands,  including  sales  com- 
mission, will  not  exceed  $2.50  per  skin. 

"When  the  herd  is  restored  to  its  natural  form  and  number, 
between  75,000  and  80,000  young  male  seals  can  be  annually  taken 
on  the  islands,  without  doing  any  injury  to  the  full  limit  of  natural 
increase  on  the  breeding  grounds.  These  skins  will  be  worth,  in 
seasons  of  dullest  trade,  not  less  than  $1,500,000  and  in  seasons  of 
good  trade,  as  to-day,  they  will  sell  for  $2,000,000  to  $3,000,000. 

' '  Therefore,  when  the  herd  is  restored  and  proper  killing  resumed, 
the  Canadian  treasury  will  receive  at  least  $300, 000  annually  in  seasons 
of  dull  trade  and  some  $600,000  annually  in  seasons  of  prosperity. 

"IV.  Unless  the  Canadian  Government  unites  in  this  manner 
with  that  of  the  United  States,  it  will  never  derive  anything  from 
this  industry.  Thus  far  it  never  has  derived  a  single  cent  from  it 
for  its  public  treasury." 

This  letter  and  memorandum  from  the  Senators  above  named 
were  transmitted  to  the  Department  of  State,  but  no  action  was  taken 
in  the  direction  proposed  pending  the  receipt  of  Great  Britain's 
answer  to  Mr.  Hay's  proposition  of  February  28,  1905,  above  referred 
to.  That  answer  was  made,  as  above  stated,  on  October  5,  1905, 
and  on  October  21,  1905,  this  memorandum,  as  an  expression  of 
the  views  of  the  Senate  Committee  in  charge  of  the  question,  was 
sent  to  the  British  ambassador,  to  be  considered  "not  as  a  formal 
proposition,  but  as  a  nucleus  from  which  such  a  proposal  may  be 
fleveloped." 
!•■  s 4 


PART   II. 


Position  of  the  United  States  in  Eegard  to  the  Killing 
of  Seals  on  the  Pribilof  Islands. 


51 


Position  of  the  United  States  in  Regard  to  the  Killing 
of  Seals  on  the  Pribilof  Islands. 


MUTUAL  RIGHTS  AND  LIABILITIES  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  THE 
LESSEE  UNDER  THE  LEASE  OF  THE  SEALING  PRIVILEGES  ON 
THE    PRIBILOF    ISLANDS. 

The  lease. 

On  March  12,  1890,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  North 
American  Commercial  Company  executed  an  agreement  leasing  to 
the  company  for  twenty  years  from  May  i,  1890,  the  exclusive  right 
to  take  fur  seals  on  the  islands  of  St.  George  and  St.  Paul  in  Alaska 
and  to  send  vessels  to  said  islands  for  the  seal  skins.  In  considera- 
tion of  this  lease  the  company  agreed: 

(i)   To  pay  an  annual  rental  of  $60,000. 

(2)  To  pay  the  revenue  tax  of  $2,  and  the  further  sum  of  $7.62^ 
for  each  seal  skin  taken  and  shipped  from  the  islands. 

(3)  To  pay  the  sum  of  50  cents  per  gallon  for  each  gallon  of  seal 
oil  made  from  the  seals  taken  on  the  islands  and  sold  during  the 
term  of  the  lease. 

(4)  To  furnish  the  native  inhabitants  of  the  islands  with  certain 
food  supplies,  fuel,  and  dwellings;  to  establish  and  maintain  school- 
houses  and  a  suitable  house  for  religious  worship  and  to  provide 
competent  teachers,  physicians,  and  medical  supplies;  also  to  pro- 
vide the  necessaries  of  life  for  the  widows  and  orphans  and  aged 
and  infirm  inhabitants — all  of  the  above  to  be  free  of  cost  to  the 
inhabitants  or  the  United  States  and  at  the  expense  of  the  company. 

(5)  To  give  the  native  inhabitants  on  the  islands  suitable  employ- 
ment, and  to  pay  a  just  compensation,  to  be  fixed  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  and  generally  to  secure  by  all  reasonable  efforts 
the  comfort,  health,  and  education,  and  to  promote  the  morals  and 
civilization  of  the  inhabitants. 

(6)  The  lease  also  contained  a  provision  prohit)iting  the  use  of 
spirituous  liquors  or  opium  on  the  islands  except  for  medicine,  and 
a  provision  giving  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  the  right  to  termi- 
nate the  lease  upon  proof  of  the  violation  by  the  company  of  any 
of  its  provisions  or  any  laws  of  the  United  States  or  any  Treasury 
regulations  respecting  fur  seals  on  the  islands. 

53 


54 

(y)   It  was  further  expressly  provided: 

"It  [the  company]  also  agrees  to  obey  and  abide  by  any  restric- 
tions or  limitations  upon  the  right  to  kill  seals  that  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  shall  judge  necessary,  under  the  law,  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  seal  fisheries  of  the  United  States;  and  it  agrees  that  it 
will  not  kill  or  permit  to  be  killed,  so  far  as  it  can  prevent,  in  any 
year  a  greater  number  of  seals  than  is  authorized  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury." 

And  further: 

"It  is  understood  and  agreed  that  the  number  of  fur  seals  to  be 
taken  and  killed  for  their  skins  upon  said  islands  by  the  North 
American  Commercial  Company  during  the  year  ending  May  i,  1891, 
shall  not  exceed  sixty  thousand." 

The  statutory  provisions  authorizing  the  lease. 

It  is  recited  in  the  lease  that  it  is  made  in  pursuance  of  Chapter 
III  of  title  23  of  the  Revised  Statutes.  By  section  1962  in  this 
chapter  of  the  Revised  Statutes  it  was  provided  that  for  the  period 
of  twenty  years  from  July  i,  1870,  the  number  of  seals  which  might 
be  killed  for  their  skins  on  the  island  of  St.  Paul  was  limited  to 
75,000  per  annum  and  on  the  island  of  St.  George  to  25,000,  but  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  authorized  to  limit  the  right  to  kill 
if  it  became  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  such  seals,  "with  such 
proportionate  reduction  of  the  rents  reserved  to  the  Government  as 
may  be  proper." 

The  Revised  Statutes  were  approved  June  22,  1874,  and  by  the 
last  section  of  the  Statutes  (sec.  5601)  provision  was  made  that  legis- 
lation between  December  i,  1873,  and  the  date  of  enactment  should 
take  effect  as  if  passed  after  the  approval  of  the  Revised  Statutes. 

During  the  period  referred  to  the  act  of  May  24,  1874,  had  been 
passed,  authorizing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  designate  the 
months  during  which  seals  might  be  taken  and  the  number  to  be 
taken  on  or  about  each  island,  respectively.  This  act,  therefore, 
operated  as  an  amendment  to  the  Revised  Statutes  and  removed  the 
restrictions  imposed  by  section  1962,  above  referred  to,  which  was  a 
reenactment  of  similar  provisions  in  the  act  of  July  i,  1870. 

Immediately  upon  the  passage  of  the  act  of  May  24,  1874,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  Alaska 
Commercial  Company,  the  predecessor  of  the  North  American  Com- 
mercial Company  and  the  lessee  of  the  sealing  privileges  on  these 
islands  at  that  time,  amending  its  lease  so  as  to  provide  that  not 
more  than  90,000  seals  should  be  killed  per  annum  on  the  island  of 
St.  Paul  and  not  more  than  10,000  on  the  island  of  St.  George. 
There  is  no  express  legislative  provision  limiting  the  maximum 
number  of  seals  to  be  taken  to  100,000,  except  the  limitation  above 


55 

referred  to  restricting  the  catch  on  the  island  of  St.  Paul  to  75,000 
and  on  the  island  of  St.  George  to  25,000,  making  together  the 
100,000  limit.  It  will  be  noticed,  however,  that  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  in  reapportioning  the  number  to  be  taken  on  each 
island,  observed  the  limitation  of  100,000  as  a  maximum. 

Restrictions  imposed  by  the  Government. 

On  June  15,  1S91,  after  the  lease  to  the  North  American  Commer- 
cial Company  was  made,  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  entered 
into  a  modus  vivendi,  which  was  announced  in  a  proclamation  by  the 
President  on  the  same  day,  whereby  the  killing  of  seals  in  Bering 
Sea  or  the  islands  therein  was  prohibited  "in  excess  of  7,500  to  be 
taken  on  the  islands  for  the  subsistence  and  care  of  the  natives" 
until  May,  1902.  This  was  an  Executive  agreement  and  was  not 
submitted  to  the  Senate  for  approval.  Before  the  expiration  of  this 
agreement  it  was  renewed  by  a  modus  vivendi  entered  into  on  April 
18,  1892,  which  was  approved  by  the  Senate  April  19,  1892,  and  pro- 
claimed by  the  President  May  9,  1892.  This  agreement  limiting  the 
number  of  seals  to  be  taken  on  the  islands  to  7,500  annually  con- 
tinued in  force  during  the  pendency  of  the  fur-seal  arbitration  and 
until  the  termination  of  the  sealing  season  for  the  year  1893. 
Since  then  the  number  of  seals  to  be  taken  on  the  islands  annually 
under  the  lease  has  been  fixed  from  year  to  year  by  regulations 
issued  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and,  since  the  transfer  of 
the  jurisdiction  over  this  matter  to  the  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor,  in  1903,  by  the  Secretary  of  that  Department. 

From  1894  to  1906,  inclusive,  the  maximum  number  allowed  each 
year  under  such  regulations  has  been  as  follows: 

1 894 20,  000 

1895 15, 000 

1 S96 30, 000 

1897 20, 000 

1898  to  1903,  inclusive 30,000 

1904  to  igo6,  inclusive 15,000 

The  killing  of  the  female  seals  is  absolutely  prohibited  under  the 
Government  regulations. 

Judicial  construction  of  the  lease. 

During  the  three  years  when  the  restrictions  under  the  modus 
vivendi  continued  the  number  of  seals  taken  by  the  lessee  on  the 
islands  were  respectively  as  follows:  In  1891,  13,482;  in  1S92,  7,549; 
and  in  1893,  7,500.  C)n  account  of  the  restrictions  so  imposed  by  the 
(lovernment  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  reduced,  during  the  years 
1891  and  1892,  the  stipulated  amount  of  ^60,000  rental  and  tlu-  bonus 


56 

of  $7.62^  per  skin  in  the  proportion  that  the  maximum  number  of 
100,000  seals  under  the  statutory  limit  bore  to  the  actual  number 
taken  on  the  islands  by  the  company.  In  1895  the  then  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  action  of  his  prede- 
cessors in  so  reducing  the  rental  and  bonus  was  without  warrant  of 
law  and  he  so  notified  the  company,  demanding  the  difference  be- 
tween the  amount  paid  and  the  full  rental  and  bonus  provided  for 
in  the  lease.  At  that  time  the  rent  for  the  year  1893  was  still  unad- 
justed and  had  not  been  paid  by  the  company,  and  the  Secretary 
also  demanded  that  it  be  paid  at  the  full  amount  of  the  rental  and 
bonus  per  skin  provided  for  in  the  lease.  The  company  tendered  to 
the  United  States  for  the  rental  for  that  year  the  sum  of  $23,789.50, 
being  $15,000  for  a  tax  on  7,500  skins,  $4,500  for  three-fortieths  of 
the  annual  rental,  and  $4,289.50  for  three-fortieths  of  the  royalty  on 
the  skins,  claiming  that  it  was  entitled,  on  account  of  the  limitation 
to  7,500  skins,  to  a  proportionate  reduction  of  the  rent  reserved — 
that  is,  in  the  proportion  that  7,500  bears  to  100,000 — and  that  this 
reduction  applied  to  the  per  capita  of  $7.62^  for  each  seal  skin  as 
well  as  to  the  $60,000  annual  rental. 

An  adjustment  of  these  differences  proved  to  be  impossible, 
and  suit  was  then  commenced  by  the  Government  in  the  United 
States  District  Court  for  the  southern  district  of  New  York  to  re- 
cover the  whole  amounts  claimed  as  due  for  the  year  1893.  (United 
States?;.  North  American  Commercial  Company,  74  Fed.  R.,  145.) 
The  court  found  for  the  United  States  in  the  sum  of  $94,687.50, 
with  interest,  and  judgment  was  entered  against  the  company  for 
$107,257.29,  principal,  interest,  and  costs.  A  counterclaim  against 
the  United  States  for  breach  of  the  lease  was  disallowed  by  the 
Circuit  Court,  but  not  on  the  merits  and  without  prejudice.  The 
company  took  a  writ  of  error  to  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  and 
that  court  certified  a  certain  question  arising  in  the  cause  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  whereupon  the  Supreme  Court  ordered  that  the 
whole  record  and  cause  be  sent  up  for  consideration.  (North  Ameri- 
can Commercial  Company  v.  United  States,  171  U.  S.,  no.) 

The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  question  of  the  claim 
for  a  proportionate  reduction  of  the  rent  was  as  follows: 

(i)  No  reduction  in  the  per  capita  charge  of  $7.62^  for  each 
seal  skin  taken  should  be  allowed,  because  it  is  not  part  of  the  rental. 
The  annual  rental  is  explicitly  stated  in  the  lease  to  be  the  sum  of 
$60,000  and  it  is  provided  that  in  addition  the  lessee  shall  pay  the 
revenue  duty  of  $2  per  skin,  and  also  the  further  sum  of  this  royalty 
on  each  skin.  On  this  point  it  is  stated  in  the  opinion  of  the  court 
(p.  126): 


57 

"We  think  the  rent  reserved  as  such  was  this  specified  annual 
rental,  and  that  the  per  capita  payment  was  in  the  nature  of  a  bonus 
in  the  sense  of  an  addition  to  the  stated  consideration. 

*  *  4!  *  *  *  * 

"  The  reduction  of  what  the  company  agreed  to  pay,  so  far  as  the 
per  capita  was  concerned,  regulated  itself.  The  smaller  the  number 
of  skins  the  less  the  company  would  pa}-;  the  larger  the  number  the 
more.  We  conclude  that  there  is  no  adequate  ground  for  holding 
that  there  should  be  any  reduction  on  the  per  capita,  which  neces- 
sarily had  to  be  paid." 

(2)  A  reduction  of  the  560,000  rental  should  be  allowed  in  tlie 
proportion  that  the  number  of  skins  permitted  to  be  taken  by  the 
Government  regulations  bore  to  the  maximum   number  of   100,000. 

It  was  argued  on  behalf  of  the  Government  that  the  limitation 
of  the  maximum  number  to  be  taken  terminated  with  the  expiration 
of  the  lease  for  the  twenty  years  from  1870  to  1890,  inasmuch  as 
such  limitation  was  expressly  made  only  for  a  period  of  twenty  years 
from  July  i,  1870,  and  the  act  of  May  24,  1874,  removed  such  restric- 
tion, leaving  the  number  in  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  and,  consequently,  that  the  provision  for  a  proportionate 
reduction  of  rental  in  case  of  such  a  limitation  did  not  apply  to  the 
later  lease.  The  court  admitted  that  there  was  force  in  this  argu- 
ment, but  it  pointed  out  that  the  Secretary,  in  reapportioning  the 
numbers  to  be  taken  on  each  island  under  this  act,  had  still  observed 
the  limitation  of  100,000,  and  that  undoubtedly  the  removal  of  the 
restriction  was  intended  to  apply  only  to  such  distribution  of  the 
number  to  be  taken  on  each  island.      In   the  language  of  the  court: 

"It  would  be  going  much  too  far  to  hold  that  the  original  provision 
for  a  maximum  number,  and  a  proportionate  reduction  of  the  fixed 
rental  in  case  of  a  limitation,  was  done  away  with  by  implication." 

The  conclusion  of  the  court  on  this  point  is  stated  in  the  opinion 
as  follows: 

"Our  opinion  is  that,  assuming  that  the  lessee  took  all  the  risk 
of  the  catch,  reduced  by  natural  causes,  yet  that  when  the  number 
that  might  be  killed  was  limited  by  the  act  of  the  Government  or  its 
agent,  the  Secretary,  the  company  was  entitled  to  such  reduction 
on  the  rental  reserved  as  might  be  proper,  and  that  the  rule  to  be 
observed  in  that  regard  would  be  a  reduction  in  the  same  proportion 
as  the  number  of  skins  permitted  to  be  taken  bore  to  the  maximum. 
This  would  reduce  the  annual  rental  for  the  year  under  considera- 
tion from  $60,000  to  $4,500." 

A  further  point  at  issue  in  the  case  was  the  company's  claim  that 
the  prohibition  by  the  Government  under  the  agreement  with  Great 
Britain  against  killing  seals  on  the  islands  in  excess  of  7,500  relieved 
the  company  from  its  covenants  for  the  i)ayment  of  rent  and  royalty. 


58 

and  that  no  action  could  be  maintained  therefor  on  the  lease  by  the 
Government.  The  argument  on  the  part  of  the  company  on  this 
point  was  that  the  limitation  under  the  modus  vivendi  was  not  such  a 
designation  by  the  Secretary  as  was  contemplated  in  the  lease,  but 
was  a  direct  intervention  by  the  Government,  and  that  the  7,500 
skins  were  taken,  not  by  the  company,  but  by  the  Government  "for 
the  subsistence  of  the  natives,"  as  provided  in  the  modus  vivendi,  and 
that  such  skins  were  turned  over  to  the  company  as  part  compensa- 
tion to  it  for  a  breach  of  its  agreement. 

On  this  point  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  the  Secretary  in  mak- 
ing the  lease  had  acted  under  the  direction  of  the  Government  as 
the  real  contracting  part)%  and  that  the  Secretary  in  making  the 
regulations  merely  exercised  the  power  of  the  Government,  so  that 
it  was  immaterial  whether  the  Secretary  on  his  own  judgment  or  in 
compliance  with  the  will  of  the  Government  limited  the  number  of 
seals  to  be  taken  in  1893  to  7,500.      As  stated  in  the  opinion  (p.  134) : 

"Undoubtedly  the  Government  could  have  directed  the  Secre- 
tary by  law  to  restrict  the  killing  to  7,500  seals,  and  the  treaty  was 
nothing  more. " 

As  further  stated  in  the  opinion,  it  appeared  that — 

"The  company  was  offered  7,500  skins  for  1893 !  took  them  ;  paid 
the  amount  fixed  by  the  Secretary  under  the  lease  for  compensation 
to  the  natives  for  taking  and  loading  the  skins,  and  subsequently 
tendered  the  sum  of  $23,789.50  as,  according  to  its  computation,  the 
full  amount  due  under  the  lease. 

******* 

"The  Government  did  not  regard  the  lease  as  broken,  but  pro- 
ceeded under  it,  and  delivered  the  7,500  skins  as  full  performance  of 
the  covenant  on  its  part,  for  the  privilege  of  taking  the  seals  was 
subject  to  such  limitation  on  the  number  as  the  Government  believed 
it  necessary  to  impose;  and  the  company  acquiesced  in  that  view  by 
taking  the  7,500  skins  without  dissent." 

It  appeared,  therefore,  that  on  the  facts  the  lessee  was  not  in  a 
position  to  claim  a  breach  of  the  contract  against  the  Government. 
The  court  held,  in  conclusion,  on  this  point  that — 

"The  power  to  regulate  the  seal  fisheries  in  the  interest  of  the 
preservation  of  the  species  was  a  sovereign  protective  power,  subject 
to  which  the  lease  was  taken." 

The  court  seems  to  intimate  that  when  the  Government  found  it 
necessary  to  exercise  that  power  the  company  might  thereupon  have 
treated  this  contract  as  rescinded,  but  in  this  case  the  company  took. 
no  such  position.  On  the  contrary,  it  accepted  the  performance 
involved  in  the  delivery  of  the  7,500  skins. 


59 

The  defendant's  counterclaim  was  urged  on  the  ground  that  at 
least  20,000  skins  could  have  been  taken  during  the  season  of  1893 
without  unreasonable  injury  to  or  diminution  of  the  seal  herd,  and 
that  the  United  States  unreasonably  prevented  the  company  from 
taking  the  difference  between  7,500  and  20,000  skins.  The  fact  that 
20,000  skins  could  have  been  so  taken  was  one  of  the  findings  of  fact 
by  the  court  below,  and  on  this  question  that  court  was  of  the 
opinion  that  the  enforcement  of  the  prohibition  was  a  breach  of  the 
contract  by  the  Government  and  an  invasion  of  the  company's  privi- 
lege in  the  nature  of  an  eviction,  and  that  the  Government  having 
entered  into  a  contract  with  an  individual  had  divested  itself  of  its 
sovereign  character  so  far  as  concerned  the  particular  transaction 
and  had  taken  the  character  of  an  ordinary  citizen,  with  no  immunity 
which  would  permit  it  to  recede  from  the  fulfillment  of  its  obligations. 

The  counterclaim  was  not  sustained,  however,  by  the  court  below, 
owing  to  a  technical  defect  in  its  presentation,  but  it  was  dismissed 
not  on  the  merits  and  without  prejudice.  The  Supreme  Court  held 
that  the  Circuit  Court  had  erred  in  not  finally  disposing  of  the 
counterclaim  on  the  merits.  The  reasons  why  the  Supreme  Court 
did  not  regard  the  company  as  in  a  position  to  urge  a  breach  of  con- 
tract appear  from  the  statement  of  its  position  on  the  preceding 
points.  The  court,  however,  adds,  in  response  to  the  argument  in 
the  opinion  of  the  court  below  and  as  a  final  ground  for  disposing 
of  this  question,  the  following: 

"The  seal  fisheries  of  the  Pribilof  Islands  were  a  branch  of  com- 
merce, and  their  regulation  involved  the  exercise  of  power  as  a  sov- 
ereign and  not  as  a  mere  proprietor.  Such  governmental  powers 
can  not  be  contracted  away,  and  it  is  absurd  to  argue  that  in  this 
instance  there  was  any  attempt  to  do  so,  or  any  sheer  oppression  or 
wrong  inflicted  on  the  lessee  by  the  Government  in  the  effort  to 
protect  the  fur  seal  from  extinction." 

The  court  sums  up  its  position  on  all  of  these  propositions  in  the 
concluding  paragraph  of  the  opinion,  as  follows  (p.   137): 

"The  privilege  leased  was  the  exclusive  right  to  take  fur  seal, 
but  it  was  subject,  and  expressly  subjected,  from  the  beginning  to 
whatever  regulations  of  the  business  the  United  States  might  make. 
If  those  regulations  reduced  the  catch  the  company  was  protected 
by  a  reduction  of  the  rental,  and  paid  taxes  and  per  capita  only  on 
the  number  taken.  The  other  expenses  to  which  it  bound  itself  were 
part  of  the  risk  of  the  venture.  The  catch  for  1893  was  lawfully 
limited  to  7,500,  and  the  company  accepted  and  disposed  of  the  skins. 
It  can  not  now  be  heard  to  insist  that  that  limitation  was  in  breach 
of  the  obligations  of  the  Government,  for  which,  though  still  claim- 
ing the  contract  to  be  outstanding,  it  is  entitled  to  recover  damages. " 


6o 

The  following  propositions  seem  to  be  established  by  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  in  this  case: 

A  restriction  imposed  by  treaty,  or  act  of  Congress,  or  order  of 
the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  limiting  the  number  of  seals 
which  may  be  taken  under  this  lease  in  any  one  year,  entitles  the 
lessee  to  a  reduction  of  the  $60,000  rental  in  the  proportion  that 
the  maximum  number  of  100,000  seals  under  the  statutory  limit 
bears  to  the  restricted  number  permitted  to  be  taken. 

Such  restriction  in  the  number  permitted  to  be  taken  does  not 
entitle  the  lessee  to  any  reduction  of  the  tax  of  $2  per  seal  or  the 
bonus  of  $7,623^  per  seal,  or  of  the  other  expenses  which  the  com- 
pany assumed  under  the  lease. 

It  seems  that  the  lessee  would  be  entitled  to  treat  the  contract  as 
rescinded  if  such  restriction  amounted  to  a  prohibition  against  the 
taking  of  any  seals.  So,  also,  in  case  the  number  permitted  to  be 
taken  was  less  than  could  as  a  matter  of  fact  be  taken  without  injury 
to  the  herd,  or  if  the  number  permitted  was  insufficient  to  make  it 
profitable  to  continue  the  lease,  it  seems  that  then  the  lessee  would 
be  entitled  to  treat  the  contract  as  rescinded. 

The  Government,  however,  is  not  liable  to  damages  for  breach 
of  the  contract  under  any  of  these  contingencies.  This  exemption 
from  liability  was  based,  in  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  on 
the  ground  that  the  regulations  presumably  would  be  made  by  the 
Government  in  an  effort  to  protect  the  seals  from  extinction  and 
that  the  regulation  of  that  branch  of  commerce  involved  the  exercise 
of  governmental  power  as  a  sovereign  and  not  as  a  mere  proprietor, 
and  that  such  governmental  power  could  not  be  contracted  away. 

PROPOSALS   FOR   TEMPORARILY    SUSPENDING   THE    KILLING^OF 
SEALS    ON    THE    PRIBILOF    ISLANDS. 

Apart  from  the  regulations  under  the  lease  the  question  of 
temporarily  prohibiting  the  killing  of  seals  on  land  has  been  dis- 
cussed in  diplomatic  correspondence  and  before  Congress  on  several 
occasions. 

The  question  first  came  up  in  the  negotiations  with  Great  Britain 
for  the  modus  Vivendi  oi  1891,  which  was  renewed  and  continued  in 
1892.  On  the  part  of  Great  Britain  there  was  a  disposition  to  insist 
that  seal  killing  be  suspended  altogether,  on  land  as  well  as  at  sea; 
but  it  was  urged  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  that  inasmuch  as 
the  lessees  of  the  islands  were  obliged  under  the  lease  to  feed  and 
care  for  the  natives,  and  to  incur  other  expenses,  it  was  necessary 
that  they  be  permitted  to  kill  a   substantial  number  of  seals  for  the 


6i 

support  and  maintenance  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  islands.  A  maxi- 
mum of  7.500  seals  annually  was  therefore  agreed  upon,  as  appears 
from  the  terms  of  the  modus  vivendi. 

The  question  again  came  up  in  1S93,  after  the  award  of  the  Paris 
Arbitration  Tribunal.  Appended  to  this  award  was  a  declaration 
recommending  that  the  two  Governments  agree  to  prohibit — 

"any  killing  of  fur  seals  either  on  land  or  at  sea  for  a  period  of  two 
or  three  years,  or  at  least  one  year,  subject  to  such  exceptions  as  the 
two  Governments  might  think  proper  to  admit." 

The  arbitrators  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  accepted  this 
recommendation,  but  the  British  arbitrators  refused  to  approve  it. 

Promptly  after  the  award  was  made  the  United  States  asked 
the  concurrence  of  Great  Britain  in  adopting  this  recommendation, 
although  the  total  suspension  of  the  killing  of  seals  on  the  land  was 
not  regarded  as  essential  to  the  safety  of  the  herd,  and  it  was  well 
understood  that  such  total  suspension  of  land  killing  might  be  a 
distinct  disadvantage  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States.  This  is 
clearly  pointed  out  in  the  correspondence  exchanged  at  that  time 
between  the  Secretary  of  State  and  Mr.  Bayard,  the  American  am- 
bassador at  London.      On  September  30,  1893,  Mr.   Bayard  wrote: 

"To  suspend  wholly,  even  for  a  single  year,  the  seal  catch  on 
the  islands  might  be  highly  prejudicial  to  the  United  States  or  their 
lessees,  and  as  in  the  provisional  or  temporary  arrangement  of  May, 
1893,  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain  a  limit  of  30,000  seals  on 
the  Russian  islands  was  agreed  to  it  would  seem  a  very  reasonable 
figure  to  adopt  for  the  catch  on  the  Pribilof  Islands,  whose  product 
had  been  supposed  to  be  about  double  that  of  the  Russian  islands." 

On  October  27,  1893,  Mr.  Gresham  responded  that — 

"The  President  is  not  now  prepared  to  say  how  far  we  ought  to 

go  in  limiting  the  seal  catch,  should   Great  Britain  make  a  demand 

of  that  kind. 

^  %  ^  4:  %  %  4: 

"  If  Great  Britain  finally  insists  that  only  a  limited  number  of 
seals  shall  be  taken  on  the  islands,  and  you  must  yield  or  fail  in  the 
effort  to  obtain  a  satisfactory  understanding  for  concurrent  action, 
you  can  report  the  fact  to  me  and  I  will  communicate  it  to  the  Presi- 
dent for  his  direction." 

Great  Britain  made  no  response  to  this  suggestion,  and  it  was 
renewed  in  January  of  the  following  year,  Secretary'  Gresham  stating 
to  the  British  ambassador  at  Washington  that — 

"The  United  States  would  be  glad  to  prohibit  entirely  for  a 
period  of  three  years,  or  for  two  years,  or  for  one  year,  the  killing 
of  seals." 


62 

No  response  was  made  to  this  proposition  by  Great  Britain,  and 
the  United  States  found  it  impossible  to  secure  Great  Britain's  con- 
sent to  a  suspension  of  sealing,  even  temporarily,  on  any  terms,  and 
it  therefore  does  not  appear  what  Great  Britain's  position  on  the 
question  of  killing  the  seals  on  land  was  at  that  time. 

PROPOSALS   IN  CONGRESS  FOR  SETTLING  THE   SEAL  CONTROVERSY 
BY    DESTROYING   THE   SEALS    ON   THE    PRIBILOF   ISLANDS. 

Congress  has  twice  given  serious  consideration  to  the  question  of^ 
putting  an  end  to  pelagic  sealing  by  putting  an  end  to  the  seal  herd, 
unless  Great  Britain  should  come  to  some  satisfactory  agreement 
on  the  subject.  The  proposition  first  came  up  in  1896,  when  a  bill 
was  introduced  providing  that  if  the  President  found  himself  una- 
ble to  secure  an  agreement  with  Great  Britain,  Japan,  and  Russia 
for  the  protection  of  the  seal  herd  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
should  kill,  once  for  all,  every  seal  on  the  Pribilof  Islands  and  sell 
their  skins  for  the  profit  of  the  Government.  There  was  no  provi- 
sion for  the  preservation  of  even  a  nucleus  for  breeding  purposes. 
This  bill  was  favorably  reported  in  the  House  by  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee.  Mr.  Dingley,  then  chairman  of  that  Committee, 
said  in  the  course  of  the  report,  after  pointing  out  that  Japan  and 
Russia  were  ready  to  join  in  an  agreement: 

"It  is  believed  that  it  is  Canada  that  is  standing  in  the  way  and 
holding  back  Great  Britain  from  cooperating  with  us  in  the  preser- 
vation of  the  seal  herd,  and  that  when  Canada  sees  that  we  propose 
to  take  summary  measures  to  end  not  only  the  inhumanity  that  con- 
signs thousands  of  young  seals  to  slow  starvation,  but  also  the  farce 
by  which  we  are  expending  large  sums  of  money  to  police  Bering 
Sea  practically  to  aid  her  pelagic  sealers  in  the  work  of  extermina- 
ting seals,  she  will  no  longer  endeavor  to  prevent  England  from 
uniting  with  us  in  efficient  measures  to  save  the  seal  herds  to  the 
world. 

"  If,  however,  we  fail  in  this,  as  we  have  failed  under  present  con- 
ditions, notwithstanding  we  have  been  urging  Great  Britain  for 
more  than  a  year  to  unite  with  us  in  measures  to  preserve  seal  life, 
then  considerations  of  mercy,  as  well  as  of  economy  and  justice, 
demand  that  we  should  stop  the  further  cruel  starvation  of  thou- 
sands of  seal  pups  by  taking  what  seals  are  left  and  disposing  of 
their  skins  and  covering  into  the  Treasury  the  proceeds,  which  would 
probably  reach  ^5,000,000." 

The  bill  passed  the  House  unanimously. 

In  the  Senate,  however,  the  bill  failed  to  pass,  although  it  was 
favorably  reported  by  a  majority  of  the  Foreign  Relations  Commit- 
tee. Senator  Morgan,  one  of  the  members  of  the  Fur-Seal  Arbitra- 
tion Tribunal,  made  a  minority  report  from  the  Foreign  Relations 
Committee,  in  which  he  said: 


63 

"  It  can  not  be  too  firmly  stated,  or  too  often,  it  seems,  in  view  of 
the  apparent  indifference  to  the  fact,  that  the  award  of  the  Tribunal 
of  Arbitration  had  no  other  purpose,  result,  or  effect  than  to  insert 
in  that  treaty  and  to  secure  b\'  its  sanctions  the  mutual  and  definite 
rights  and  obligations  of  both  the  high  contracting  powers  as  to 
which  they  had  been  unable  to  come  to  an  agreement. 

"In  this  award  certain  rights  of  the  United  States  were  left 
undisturbed  and  unquestioned,  the  same  not  having  been  submitted 
to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration.      Among  these  are: 

"  I.  The  free  and  full  assertion  of  every  right  and  claim  of  right 
to  the  ownership  and  control  of  the  Alaskan  seal  herds  that  the 
United  States  may  choose  to  assert,  as  against  any  Government 
except  Great  Britain. 

"2.  The  right  to  regulate  and  restrain  our  own  people  in  all  their 
conduct  in  reference  to  fur  seals  in  any  waters  of  the  oceans  or  seas, 
and  to  punish  their  violation  of  those  legal  restrictions. 

"3.  The  right  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  all  persons  on  land  and 
within  the  3-mile  limit  around  the  Pribilof  Islands,  in  respect  of  the 
fur  seals. 

^j;  ^  :}:  *  H:  =5:  * 

"The  protection  of  the  seal  herds  was  the  sole  object  and  purpose 
of  the  many  diplomatic  communications  between  the  Governments 
that  led  up  to  the  treaty  and  to  the  award  and  to  the  subsequent 
statutes  and  additional  regulations  for  their  enforcement. 

"  If  the  treaty,  as  it  is  completed  by  the  award,  is  not  satisfactory 
to  the  United  States,  the  remedy  is   by  its  abrogation,  and   not  the 
violation  of  it  by  destroying  the  subject  to  which  it  relates. 
******* 

"The  treaty  and  the  Pans  award  which  completed  it  set  forth 
those  mutual  interests  and  purposes  (preservation  of  seals  and  seal- 
ing industry)  as  the  consideration  upon  which  the  mutual  obligations 
and  duties  rested.  None  of  them  included  or  contemplated  the 
destruction  of  the  seal  herds  in  any  emergency,  and  such  destruction 
by  either  Government,  or  through  its  permission  or  neglect,  violates 
the  whole  spirit  and  purpose  of  th,e  treaty  and  the  award  made  under 
its  authority  by  the  Paris  Tribunal. 

"Great  Britain  has  the  clear  right  to  insist  that  this  bill,  if  it 
becomes  a  law,  is  a  violation  of  the  treaty  rights  of  that  Government 
in  respect  of  the  fur  seals." 

Senator  Sherman  joined  in  the  minority  report,  expressing  his 
views  as  follows: 

"I  place  my  opposition  to  this  bill  upon  the  ground  that  the  pro- 
posed destruction  of  the  seals  by  the  United  States  is  a  cruel  act, 
not  to  be  justified  even  though  the  same  result  may  be  brought 
about  by  pelagic  sealing.  The  measure  proposed  is  dictated  by  ap- 
parent spite  because  some  other  power  will  destroy  them  in  another 
way.  It  is  better  to  take  the  chances  that  Great  Britain  will  give 
to  the  subject  kinder  and  more  generous  treatment  and  join  with  the 
United  States  in  making  new  regulations  to  preserve  seal  life. "  (For. 
Rels.  Committee  Re[)orls,  vol.  8,  pp.  380-3X7.) 


64 

In  1902  the  question  again  came  up,  when  a  bill  was  introduced 
in  Congress  providing  for  a  revision  of  the  Paris  award  regulations 
with  the  object  of  abolishing  pelagic  sealing,  and  in  case  a  ?nodus 
Vivendi  for  the  suspension  of  sealing  pending  such  revision  was  not 
agreed  to  before  the  beginning  of  the  following  season  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  was  authorized,  with  the  approval  of  the  President, 
to  kill  the  entire  Alaskan  fur-seal  herd,  with  the  exception  of  1,000 
males  and  10,000  females.  This  bill  was  favorably  reported  to  the 
House  by  a  majorit}^  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  who  held 
that— 

"  Unless  we  stop  the  pelagic  hunter  in  his  work  of  destroying  the 
female  seals  in  Alaskan  waters  outside  of  the  60-mile  zone,  which 
entails  the  starvation  of  their  pups  left  on  the  Pribilof  Islands 
awaiting  their  return  from  the  feeding  grounds,  there  is  no  justifica- 
tion in  our  trying  to  preserve  the  seal  herd  for  him  to  destroy." 
(H.  R.  Report,  No.  2303,  57th  Cong.,  ist  sess.) 

A  minority  report  was  also  made  from  this  Committee,  which, 
after  citing  the  minority  report  above  referred  to  of  the  Senate 
Foreign  Relations  Committee,  concluded  as  follows: 

"If  the  British  Government,  abusing  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  is 
willing  to  allow  its  subjects  to  destroy  one  of  the  choice  gifts  of 
Providence  to  mankind  and  to  annihilate  the  herd,  it  should  be  per- 
mitted by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  bear  the  respon- 
sibility unaided  and  alone.  Certainly  this  Government  should  not 
assume  a  heavy  share  by  taking  part  in  the  final  act  of  extermina- 
tion."    (H.  R.  Report,  No.  2303,  part  2,  57th  Cong.,  ist  sess.) 

The  bill  failed  to  become  a  law.  While  this  bill  was  under  con- 
sideration in  Congress  the  British  Columbia  Legislative  Assembly 
on  June  11,  1902,  passed  the  following  resolution  with  reference  to  it: 

"Whereas,  British  subjects  have  faithfully  observed  the  regula- 
tions made  pursuant  to  the  award,  dated  the  15th  August,  1893,  for 
the  proper  protection  and  preservation  of  the  fur  seal  in  the  Ber- 
ing Sea; 

"And  whereas,  it  is  announced  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  have  lately  passed  an  act  in  effect  that  unless  a 
modus  Vivendi  prohibiting  the  killing  of  seals  be  secured  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  pelagic  season  of  1902,  authority  will  be  given  to  kill  all 
the  male  and  female  seals,  with  the  exception  of  10,000  females  and 
1,000  males ; 

"And  whereas,  the  exercise  of  such  a  presumed  authority  is  con- 
trary to  the  finding  of  the  Bering  Sea  Tribunal,  and  a  direct  violation 
of  the  spirit  of  the  agreement  entered  into  between  the  Governments 
of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  and  an  unwarrantable  inter- 
ference with  and  infringement  upon  the  undoubted  rights  of  British 
subjects: 


65 

^'' Be  it  therefore  resolved^  That  this  House  would  view  with  regret 
the  commission  of  such  act,  and  in  the  opinion  of  this  House  an 
humble  address  be  presented  to  His  Honor  the  Lieutenant-Governor, 
asking  him  to  communicate  with  the  Dominion  Government,  protest- 
ing against  such  action,  and  urging  that  all  proper  steps  be  taken  to 
bring  this  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  Imperial  Government." 

Apparently,  it  has  not  occurred  to  the  Canadian  sealing  interests 
that  if  the  destruction  of  the  seal  herd  on  land  by  the  United  States 
is  "  a  direct  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  agreement  entered  into 
between  the  Governments  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States," 
then  it  is  equally  a  violation  of  such  agreement  for  the  Canadian 
sealers  to  destroy  the  seal  herd  by  pelagic  sealing.  Heretofore  the 
answer  of  the  Canadians  would  have  been  that  pelagic  sealing  was 
not  a  menace  to  the  existence  of  the  herd.  Under  the  present  con- 
ditions, however,  such  an  explanation  can  hardly  be  regarded  as 
sufficient. 

Notwithstanding  the  introduction  in  Congress  of  the  two  bills 
above  referred  to  for  the  destruction  of  the  seal  herd,  this  Govern- 
ment is  not  committed  to  that  plan.  So  far  as  Congress  is  con- 
cerned the  bills  were  defeated  on  Senator  Morgan's  report,  which 
distinctly  affirmed  the  obligation  of  both  Governments  to  preserve 
the  seals  as  long  as  the  treaty  existed.  So  far  as  the  Executive 
branch  of  the  Government  is  concerned.  Secretary  of  State  Sherman, 
in  his  letter  of  May  lo,  1897  (Foreign  Relations,  1897,  p.  290),  which 
was  communicated  to  Lord  Salisbury,  stated  that  although  the 
proposition  to  abandon  negotiations  and  destroy  the  seals  on  the 
islands  had  been  seriously  made  in  Congress  as  the  speedy  end  to 
a  dangerous  controversy,  yet  such  a  measure  had  not  been  enter- 
tained by  the  Department  of  State. 

REPORT  BY  SENATE  COMMITTEE  ON  TERRITORIES  RECOMMENDING 
SUSPENSION   OF  KILLING   OF  SEALS  ON  THE   ISLANDS. 

In  January,  1904,  a  subcommittee  of  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Territories,  consisting  of  Senators  Dillingham,  Burnham,  Nelson, 
and  Patterson,  who  had  visited  the  seal  islands  during  the  preced- 
ing summer,  made  a  report  on  the  fur-seal  industry.  After  briefly 
reviewing  the  question  and  stating  as  a  fact  "that  the  killing  of 
young  seals  on  the  islands  since  1896  has  been  so  close  that  no  young 
male  life  has  been  permitted  to  pass  over  the  slaughter  fields  on  to 
the  breeding  grounds,"  they  made  the  following  recommendation: 

"The  committee  therefore  recommend  that  a  suspension  of  all 
killing  by  the  lessees  of  the  seal  islands  be  made  at  once  and  indefi- 
nitely, and  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  shall  attempt 
to  reopen  and  conclude  negotiations  with  the  Government  of  Great 


66 

Britain  looking  to  a  revision  of  existing  rules  and  regulations  which 
govern  the  taking  of  seals  in  the  open  waters  of  the  North  Pacific 
Ocean  and  Bering  Sea,  and  to  enter  upon  negotiations  with  the 
Governments  of  Russia  and  Japan  to  the  end  that  all  pelagic  sealing 
may  be  stopped;  and  if,  after  a  reasonable  length  of  time,  the  Gov- 
ernment fails  to  secure  a  proper  revision  and  enforcement  of  such 
rules  and  to  conclude  such  negotiations,  then  the  Secretary  of  Com- 
merce may,  with  the  approval  of  the  President,  reduce  the  surplus 
female  life  of  the  herd  on  the  Pribilof  Islands  to  10,000." 

During  the  same  session  of  Congress  a  joint  resolution  was  intro- 
duced directing  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  to  suspend 
all  killing  of  male  fur  seals  on  the  Pribilof  Islands,  to  continue  indefi- 
nitely, providing,  however,  that  5,500  male  seals  might  be  killed 
under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  to  pro- 
vide food  for  the  natives  and  the  skins  to  be  sold  by  him  and  the 
proceeds  covered  into  the  Treasury.  The  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means,  having  'this  resolution  under  consideration,  took  testimony 
on  the  subject  on  March  9  and  10,  and  examined,  among  others,  Mr. 
Frank  H.  Hitchcock,  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor,  Hon.  Charles  J.  Faulkner,  representing  the  lessees  of 
the  islands,  and  Mr.  Henry  W.  Elliott.  Mr.  Elliott  urged  strongly 
the  adoption  of  the  resolution  on  the  ground  that  the  killing  on 
land  had  become  so  close  that  even  the  seals  under  two  years  were 
now  taken,  and  that  if  the  herd  was  to  be  preserved  land  killing 
should  be  stopped  altogether.  Meanwhile,  the  question  of  pelagic 
sealing  could  be  taken  up  with  Great  Britain  with  good  chances  of 
success,  if  the  resolution  was  passed  eliminating  commercialism  on 
the  American  side. 

Mr.  Faulkner,  on  behalf  of  the  North  American  Commercial 
Company,  controverted  Mr.  Elliott's  statement  that  seals  under  two 
years  old  were  being  killed  on  the  islands,  and  cited  the  unanimous 
opinion  of  all  the  other  seal  experts  in  support  of  the  position  that 
the  number  of  male  seals  on  the  islands  could  be  still  further  reduced 
without  threatening  the  existence  of  the  herds.  He  showed  that 
the  restrictions  which  had  already  been  imposed  upon  the  killing 
on  land  were  due  to  the  injury  to  the  herd  resulting  from  pelagic 
sealing,  and  he  urged  that  instead  of  passing  the  proposed  resolu- 
tion, which  in  effect  would  destroy  the  lease  without  compensation 
to  the  company,  negotiations  be  again  undertaken  with  England, 
Japan,  and  Russia  to  stop  pelagic  sealing. 

Mr.  Hitchcock,  representing  the  Department  of  Commerce  and 
Labor,  opposed  the  adoption  of  the  resolution.  The  position  of  the 
Department  was  stated  to  be  that  if  the  herd  could  be  saved  without 
a  complete  suspension  of  killing  by  the  lessee  it  would  be  a  mistake 
to  take  such  action,  because  the  result  would  be  a  larger  surplus  of 


6/ 

male  seals  to  become  the  prey  of  pelagic  sealers.  He  denied  Mr. 
Elliott's  statement  that  seals  under  two  years  old  were  taken  by  the 
lessees  to  any  extent,  and  stated  that  the  Government  proposed  to 
cut  down  their  present  quota  of  30,000  annually  to  15,000,  and 
to  reserve  out  for  breeding  purposes  1,000  three-year  old  males  and 
1,000  two-year  old  males,  and  absolutely  prevent  the  killing  of  any 
under  two  years  old.  He  was  very  doubtful  if  the  lessee  under  such 
regulations  would  get  the  full  15,000  allowed,  and  this  has  since 
proved  to  be  the  case.  He  pointed  out  that  the  regulation  of  the 
seal  business  on  land  was  already  under  the  Department  of  Com- 
merce and  Labor,  with  adequate  power  to  impose  restrictions,  and 
the  adoption  of  this  resolution  requiring  the  Secretary  to  do  what 
under  existing  laws  he  was  at  liberty  to  do  in  his  discretion  would 
deprive  this  Government  of  the  advantage  which  it  now  has  in 
negotiating  with  Great  Britain,  in  that  it  could  no  longer  offer  to 
suspend  killing  on  land  as  an  inducement  for  similar  action  at  sea. 
The  resolution  was  not  adopted. 


PART   III. 


The  Sealing  Industry. 


69 


The  Sealing  Industry. 


CANADIAN. 
Estimated  value  of  vessels  in  i8g8. 

As  appears  from  the  diplomatic  negotiations  reviewed  elsewhere, 
the  settlement  of  the  sealing  question  by  the  payment  of  an  agreed 
sum  to  the  Canadian  sealers  had  been  suggested  by  the  United 
States  in  1897  and  favorably  received  by  the  Canadian  representa- 
tives. Soon  thereafter  the  Canadian  sealers  organized  themselves 
into  an  association  known  as  the  "Victoria  Sealers'  Association," 
with  the  Hudson  Bay  Company  and  R.  P.  Rithet  &  Co.,  of  Victoria, 
as  trustees. 

With  respect  to  this  organization  the  United  States  consul  at 
Victoria  reported  (January  6,  1898)  that  the  owners  of  the  sealing 
vessels  were  ready  to  sell  the  entire  fleet,  numbering  over  fifty 
vessels,  for  $500,000  and  to  guarantee  that  the  Canadian  Govern- 
ment would  not  allow  any  vessels  to  clear  for  sealing  from  Canadian 
ports  thereafter.  It  was  represented  that  the  organization  was 
sufficiently  powerful  to  make  good  this  guaranty  and  that  the  com- 
manding position  of  its  members  and  the  additional  strength  result- 
ing from  organization  would  enable  them  to  control  the  political 
situation  and  public  policy  of  British  Columbia  and  exercise  an 
important  influence  over  the  action  of  the  Dominion  Government. 
He  further  reported  that  it  was  understood  at  Victoria  that  the 
North  American  Commercial  Company,  the  lessees  of  the  Pribilof 
Islands,  would  supply  the  money  and  be  the  real  purchasers  of  the 
fleet  in  the  proposed  settlement. 

Subsequently,  after  the  negotiations  then  in  progress  had  led  to 
the  formation  of  the  Joint  High  Commission  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  on  Canadian  questions,  these  sealers  ap- 
pointed Capt.  J.  G.  Cox,  of  Victoria,  as  their  representative  to 
present  their  interests  and  conduct  the  negotiations  on  their  behalf 
before  the  Joint  High  Commission.  A  statement  was  accordingly 
prepared  by  him  (see  statement  marked  "A"  in  the  appendix,  p.  109), 

71 


72 

showing  that  the  sealing  fleet  at  that  time  consisted  of  54  vessels, 
having  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  3,713  tons.  The  value  of  these 
vessels  was  estimated  as  follows: 

Value  of  hull,  spars,  and  rigging |445.  935.  60 

Value  of  equipment  (not  including  Bering  Sea  trip) 174,445.25 

Total  value  of  vessels  and  equipment 620,  380.  85 

These  values,  as  appears  from  this  statement,  were  given  on  the 
basis  of  $165  per  ton  as  the  average  value  of  vessels  and  equipment, 
without  provisions  or  sea  stores. 

In  addition  to  the  value  of  the  vessels  a  further  sum  was  claimed 
on  behalf  of  the  sealers  as  compensation  for  being  compulsorily 
deprived  of  their  occupation. 

These  figures  were  submitted  by  the  Commissioners  for  critical 
examination  to  two  experts  on  the  value  of  vessels — Capt.  Herbert  S. 
Taylor,  selected  on  the  part  of  Canada,  and  Capt.  I.  E.  Thayer, 
selected  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 

Captain  Thayer  and  Captain  Taylor  differed  so  entirely  in  their 
estimates  that  they  found  it  impossible  to  agree  on  a  joint  report. 
(For  Captain  Thayer's  estimates,  see  Table  "B"  in  the  appendix, 
p.  III.) 

Captain  Taylor  (Canadian)  reported  that  in  his  opinion  the  cost 
of  sealing  schooners  in  Victoria — hull,  spars,  sails,  anchors,  and 
full  equipment  for  sea,  without  sealing  outfit — averaged,  per  ton, 
$139.35,  ^rid  that  the  value  of  the  sealing  outfit  would  average 
$41.52,  making  a  total  valuation  per  ton  of  $180.87.  From  this, 
however,  he  made  a  deduction  for  depreciation  of  an  average  per 
ton  of  $16.  72,  leaving  the  value  at  an  average  per  ton  of  $164. 15. 

In  arriving  at  the  amount  to  deduct  for  depreciation  he  adopted 
the  following  rule: 

Depreciation  per  ton  on  vessels — 

Up  to  5  years IS- 00 

From  5  to  10  years 10.00 

From  10  to  15  years 15.00 

From  15  to  20  years 25.00 

From  20  to  25  years 40.00 

Over  25  years 50.  00 

On  this  basis  Captain  Taylor's  valuation  was  as  follows: 

54  vessels,  tonnage  3,713: 

First  cost I495,  048 

Depreciation 61,  575 

Value  after  depreciation 433,  473 

Value  of  outfit 138,  888 

Total  value  of  vessels  and  outfit 572,  361 


/o 

Captain   Thayer's  valuation,  on  the  other  hand,  was  as  follows: 

33  vessels: 

Present  value,  exclusive  of  outfit $125,  450 

Present  value  of  outfit 67,  gio 

21  vessels: 

Present  value,  exclusive  of  outfit 57.055 

Present  value  of  outfit 29,458 

Total  value,  54  vessels  and  outfits 279,  873 

A  revaluation  was  called  for  on  33  vessels,  which  presumably 
were  the  only  ones  then  regularly  engaged  in  the  business.  Captain 
Taylor's  revaluation  of  these  33  vessels,  including  outfit,  was 
$455,611 ;  Captain  Thayer's  revaluation  of  these  ^;i  vessels,  including 
outfit,  was  $187,410 — a  difference  in  valuation  of  |,268,2oi. 

With  these  figures  as  a  basis  the  British  Commissioners  announced 
that  after  giving  every  consideration  to  the  facts  and  circumstances 
they  had  concluded  that  $750,000  should  be  paid  for  the  money  claim 
on  behalf  of  the  Canadians.      It  was  stated  that  this  amount — 

"  includes  the  value  of  the  fishing  fleet  of  54  vessels  of  a  tonnage  of 
3,713  tons,  including  outfit,  and  also  an  allowance  for  the  good  will, 
as  it  were,  of  their  business,  based  upon  three  years'  profits  and  a 
reasonable  sum  to  pay  a  gratuity  or  allowance  to  the  captains  of 
the  fleet  and  a  few  others  who  have  been  for  many  years  engaged 
in  this  sealing  business  and  made  their  living  by  it."  (Letter, 
December  6,  1898,  Sir  Louis  Davies  to  General  Foster.) 

It  was  further  stated  that  additional  compensation  would  be 
expected  for  the  relinquishment  of  sealing  as  a  national  right. 

The  United  States  Commissioners  made  a  counter  proposition, 
proposing  $500,000  in  full  settlement  for  the  sealers'  interests,  and  as 
an  additional  concession  proposed  to  leave  the  vessels  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  Canadian  owners,  although  their  full  value  was  repre- 
sented in  the  amount  offered,  in  addition  to  a  substantial  amount 
for  profits,  good  will,  and  bonus  to  captains. 

At  the  time  the  negotiations  were  suspended  it  was  thought  that 
the  British  Commissioners  were  prepared  to  accept  the  proposal  of 
$500,000  made  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  if  a  satisfactory 
compensation  was  also  made  for  the  abandonment  of  the  national 
right  of  sealing. 

Present  value  of  vessels,  'based  on  Canadian  estimates. 

The  Sealers'  Association  above  referred  to  was  reorganized  in 
1900  into  a  corporation  known  as  the  "Victoria  Sealing  Company." 
This  company  owned  44  vessels,  which,  with  three  owned  outside  of 
the  company,  comprised  the  entire  Victoria  sealing  fleet  at  that  time. 
This  company  has  an  authorized   capital  stock   of  $500,000,  divided 


74 

into  40,000  shares  of  the  par  value  of  $12.50  each,  of  which  33,479 
shares  were  issued  at  par  when  the  company  was  organized,  repre- 
senting an  outstanding  capital  of  $418,487.50.  Of  this  amount 
$394,558.35  was  carried  on  the  books  of  the  company  as  the  cost  of 
the  schooners  acquired  on  the  formation  of  the  company.  The 
schooner  account  shown  on  the  balance  sheet  of  the  company 
November  30,  1905,  appears  as  follows: 

"  By  schooner  cost  account  acquired  on  formation  of  company 
(after  deducting  value  of  Hatzic,  Triumph,  Penelope,  and 
C.  D.  Rand  lost  and   Mermaid  sold) |35i>  005.85" 

This  amount,  therefore,  is  now  carried  as  the  book  value  of  the 
remaining  39  vessels  after  deducting  the  values  of  the  four  lost  and 
the  one  sold.  The  accounts  of  the  company  show,  however,  that 
no  deduction  in  this  account  has  been  made  since  the  organization 
of  the  company  for  depreciation  of  values  for  use  and  age. 

The  necessity  for  making  a  substantial  deduction  for  deprecia- 
tion will  be  evident  from  an  examination  of  the  present  condition 
of  the  fleet,  which  in  brief  is  as  follows: 

Fifteen  vessels,  including  most  of  the  oldest  vessels,  of  the  fieet 
are  no  longer  in  regular  use  and  with  probably  a  few  exceptions 
have  had  very  little,  if  anything,  spent  on  them  for  repairs  since  the 
organization  of  the  company.  Of  this  number  eight  have  not  been 
sealing  since  1902,  two  of  them  made  their  last  voyages  respectively 
in  1901  and  1900,  and  the  other  five  have  not  been  out  since  1898,  or 
prior  to  the  organization  of  the  company. 

One  of  the  vessels  included  in  the  above  valuation,  the  Faivn, 
was  reported  lost  in  1905,  so  that  its  entire  value  must  be  deducted. 

The  remaining  23  vessels  belonging  to  the  company  have  been 
used  with  considerable  regularity  for  the  past  eight  years  and  pre- 
sumably the  amounts  spent  by  the  company  for  repairs,  averaging 
about  $8,000  annually,  have  been  spent  on  them,  although  a  propor- 
tionate share  of  such  repairs  must  be  apportioned  to  the  five  vessels 
lost  and  the  one  sold.  (See  Table  "C"  in  the  appendix,  p.  113.) 
Nevertheless,  a  considerable  amount  must  be  deducted  from  their 
book  value  on  account  of  depreciation.  Five  of  them  are  between  10 
and  15  years,  eleven  are  between  15  and  20  years,  five  are  between 
20  and  25  years,  and  one  is  over  25  years.  In  the  five  years  which 
have  elapsed  since  the  values  of  these  vessels  were  entered  on  the 
books  of  the  company  each  of  these  vessels  has  passed  into  the  next 
lower  class  in  value,  and  according  to  the  rule  adopted  by  Captain 
Taylor,  the  Canadian  expert,  in  1898,  the  deductions  which  should 
now  be  made  in  the  values  for  these  vessels  for  depreciation  on 
account  of  age  are  as  follows: 


75 

Between  ^  and  lo  years,  $io  per  ton. 

Tons.  Deduction. 

The  Casca 67   X  $10  =       I670 

Between  10  and  ij  years,  $1^  per  ton. 

1.  Ida  Etta,  12  years 73 

2.  Ocean  Rover,  10  years 63 

3.  Sadie  Turpel,  14  years 61 

4.  Victoria,  14  years 68 

5.  Zilla  May,  10  years 66 

Total  331    X      15   =     4.965 

Between  /j  and  20  years,  S^J  per  ton. 

1.  Ainoko,  15  years 76 

2.  C.  G.  Cox,  15  years 82 

3.  Carrie  C.  W.,  18  years 92 

4.  Diana,  17  years 54 

5.  Director,  16  years 87 

6.  Dora  Sieward,  15  years 98 

7.  Florence  M.  Smith,  18  years 99 

8.  Libbie,  17  years 93 

g.  Otto,  17  years 86 

10.   Vera,  ig  years 67 

Total  834   X     25   =   20,850 

Between  20  and  2j  years,  $40  per  ton. 

1.  Allie  I.  Alger,  21  years 79 

2.  Annie  E.  Paint,  21  years 82 

3.  E.  B.  Marvin,  22  years 123 

4.  Geneva,  22  years i07 

5.  Oscar  and  Hattie,  22  years 85 

6.  Teresa,  23  years 7° 

Total  546   X     40  =   21,840 

07)er  2J  years,  $jo  per  ton. 
City  of  San  Diego 5i    X      50  =     2,  550 

50,  875 

From  Captain  Taylor's  report  it  appears  that  deductions  for 
depreciation  on  account  of  age  are  not  affected  by  ordinary  repairs, 
which  are  a  constant  necessity  in  sealing  vessels,  so  no  account  need 
be  taken  here  of  the  expenditures  for  repairs. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  deductions  the  value  of  the  Fawn,- 
reported  lost  last  season,  as  above  noted,  must  also  be  deducted. 
This  vessel  was  valued  by  the  sealers  in  their  statement  submitted 
to  the  Joint  High  Commission  in  1898  at  upwards  of  $10,000.  Pre- 
sumably it  was  entered  on  the  books  of  the  company  at  a  somewhat 
lower  valuation  than  was  proposed  as   a   selling  price   to  the  United 


76 

States.  It  appears  from  the  company's  accounts,  as  above  stated, 
that  the  entire  fleet  of  44  vessels  was  valued  by  the  company  at 
^394,558.35,  which  shows  an  average  valuation  per  vessel  of  about 
$9,000.  This  vessel  was  smaller  than  the  average,  being  only  63 
tons,  but  it  was  also  newer  than  the  average,  being  only  8  years 
old  in  1900.  It  is,  therefore,  fair  to  assume  that  it  was  entered  at 
about  the  average  price  of  $9,000.  As  no  depreciation  in  value 
has  been  deducted  from  the  book  values  in  the  company's  accounts 
as  shown  the  full  original  value  on  the  books  is  the  amount  to  be 
deducted. 

A  further  deduction  from  the  book  value  of  the  company's  vessels 
must  be  made  for  the  depreciation  of  the  15  vessels  above  referred 
to  as  out  of  repair  and  no  longer  in  use.  According  to  Captain 
Taylor's  report  sealing  vessels  depreciate  at  a  regular  rate  with  age, 
even  when  kept  in  good  repair  and  a  seaworthy  condition.  It  is 
fair  to  assume,  therefore,  that  vessels  will  depreciate  more  and  faster 
when  no  repairs  are  made  and,  as  in  this  case,  they  are  allowed  to  lie 
idle  and  rot  in  the  harbor.  Five  of  these  15  vessels,  as  above  stated, 
have  never  been  used  by  the  company  and  their  average  age  is 
upwards  of  26  years,  and  their  aggregate  tonnage  is  318  tons. 
Under  Captain  Taylor's  rule  their  depreciation,  even  if  kept  up  by 
repairs,  would  be  $50  per  ton.  It  would  not  seem  unreasonable, 
under  the  circumstances,  to  add  50  per  cent  additional  to  this  de- 
preciation, making  a  total  deduction  of  $75  per  ton.  The  deduction 
for  these  five  vessels,  therefore,  would  be  318  X  $75, 
amounting  to $23,  850.00 

The  average  age  of  the  other  10  vessels  no  longer 
in  use  is  upwards  of  22  years,  and  their  aggregate  ton- 
nage is  668.  The  deduction  for  these,  under  Captain 
Taylor's  rule,  even  if  kept  in  good  repair,  would  be  $40 
per  ton,  but  for  the  same  reason  as  before  an  additional 
deduction  should  be  made  for  their  more  rapid  depre- 
ciation in  their  neglected  condition.  Under  the  cir- 
cumstances $15  per  ton  additional  does  not  seem 
unreasonable,  making  a  total  of  $55  per  ton.  The 
deductions  for  these  vessels,  therefore,  would  be 
668    X   $55,  amounting  to 36,740.00 

Making  a  total  depreciation  for  these  15  vessels  of 60,590.00 

The  foregoing  amounts,  therefore,  must  be  deducted  from  the 
valuation  at  which  the  vessels  of  the  company  are  now  carried  on 
its  accounts. 


7 


This  valuation  for  39  vessels  is  given  in  the  balance 

sheet  of  November,  1905,  as $35i'005-85 

Deductions : 

(i)   Depreciation  on  23  vessels,  shown 

above  to  be $50,875.  00 

(2)  The  book  value  of  the  Fawii^  lost 

in  1905,  estimated  at 9,000.00 

(3)  The  depreciation  on  the  15  vessels 

not  in  use,  shown  above  to  be...        60,590.00 

120,465.00 

Balance 230,540.85 

This   valuation   would  give  an  average  value  of  about 

$3,000  each  for  the  15  vessels,  amounting  in  all  to...       45,000.00 

And   an  average   value  of  about  $8,000   each   for   the 

remaining  23  vessels,  amounting  in  all  to 184,000.00 

Total  229,000.00 

In  addition  to  the  value  of  vessels  the  company  carries  as  assets 
in  its  balance  sheet  of  November,  1905 — 

A  gun  account  of $15,336.62 

A  boat  account  of 3,176.05 

And  some  miscellaneous  items  not  exceeding  1,500.00 

Making  a  total  of  about 20,012.  67 

The  entire  assets  of  the  company,  therefore,  as  shown  by  its  own 
accounts,  after  making  the  deductions  for  depreciation  of  values  on 
the  basis  proposed  by  the  representative  of  the  sealing  interests  in 
1898,  would  at  the  present  time  not  exceed: 

Vessels  and  equipment $230,  540.  85 

Boats,  guns,   stores,  etc 20,012.67 

Total  250,553.52 

The  three  vessels  owned  outside  of  the  Sealing  Company  do  not 
require  much  attention.  Two  of  them,  the  Enterprise  diVidi  the  Jessie^ 
were  reported  in  December,  1903,  by  the  United  States  consul  at 
Victoria  as  really  owned  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  ap- 
parently they  have  not  been  sealing  since.  The  other  vessel  is  the 
Umbrina,  of  99  tons  and  18  years  old.  The  three  together  would 
not  average  more,  on  the  sealers'  own  estimate  and  with  deductions 
for  depreciation,  than  the  other  vessels  of  the  fleet.  Their  value, 
therefore,  may  be  taken  as  about  $8,000  X  3,  or  $24,000  in  all. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  from  the  Canadian  point  of  view, 
giving  full  credit  to  their   figures  for  original  values  and  estimating 


78 

deductions  for  depreciation  by  a  method  adopted  by  their  own  ex- 
perts, the  present  value  of  the  entire  Victoria  fleet  and  sealing  outfit 
would  not  exceed  $275,000. 

American  valuation. 

On  the  other  hand,  from  the  American  point  of  view  any  such 
valuation  as  $275,000  would  be  regarded  as  much  too  high.  From 
the  reports  of  the  United  States  consul  at  Victoria  it  would  appear 
that  the  sealing  fleet  is  now  composed  chiefly  of  rotten  old  hulks; 
that  those  not  in  use  are  thoroughly  unseaworthy  and  of  no  value 
whatever,  and  that  the  balance  are  fast  approaching  the  same  con- 
dition. It  will  further  be  noted  that  Captain  Thayer,  the  American 
expert  on  vessels  in  1898,  valued  the  54  vessels  then  composing  the 
fleet  at  only  $279,873  and  also  that  he  valued  the  33  best  vessels  of 
these,  including  outfit,  at  only  $187,410.  These  figures  certainly 
would  not  bear  out  a  valuation  of  $275,000  for  41  vessels,  15  of  which 
are  wholly  useless  and  the  remaining  26  are  mostly  vessels  which  Cap- 
tain Thayer  included  in  the  33  valued  by  him  eight  years  ago. 

At  that  time  the  United  States  consul  at  Victoria  investigated 
for  the  American  Commissioners  the  cost  of  building  sealing  vessels 
at  Victoria  and  reported  (September  7,  1898)  that — 

"Contractors  say  they  would  be  glad  to  take  contracts  to  build 
such  schooners  now  for  one  hundred  ($100)  dollars  per  ton  'com- 
plete, hull  and  spars,*  provided  they  were  not  rushed." 

For  work  under  pressure  they  "would  require  $115  or$i2oper 
ton. "  Schooners  which  cost  no  more  than  that  new  would  be  worth, 
after  the  depreciation  for  the  age  which  the  present  vessels  have 
reached,  considerably  less  than  the  total  computed  on  the  Canadian 
figures,  to  say  nothing  of  the  additional  deduction  for  loss  of  value 
from  lack  of  repairs. 

Value  of  business. 

It  appears  that  the  business  of  pelagic  sealing  has  not  been 
a  profitable  one  for  some  years  past  and  it  is  rapidly  growing 
worse.  As  early  as  1897  Lord  Salisbury  wrote  (Foreign  Relations, 
1897,  p.  271)  that  unfavorable  conditions  the  preceding  year  had 
brought  "many  of  the  owners  of  sealing  vessels  to  the  verge  of 
bankruptcy."  Yet  the  pelagic  catch  of  the  Canadians  for  the  pre- 
ceding season  from  all  sources  was  over  55,000  skins,  which  is  nearly 
30  per  cent  larger  than  the  largest  catch  of  any  year  since.  The 
catch  for  the  past  three  years  has  been  less  than  15,000  skins  each 
year.  Obviously,  there  can  not  be  much  profit  in  the  business  under 
present  conditions.  The  Victoria  Sealing  Company  has  paid  but  two 
dividends  on  its  stock  during  the  six  years  of  its  existence.      One  of 


79 

5o  cents  per  share,  or  4  per  cent  on  its  outstanding  capital,  was 
declared  at  the  close  of  the  1903  season.  This  was  due  to  an  unex- 
pected catch  of  1,794  skins  at  Cape  Horn.  Nevertheless,  in  the  fol- 
lowing year  the  company's  balance  sheet  shows  in  its  liabilities  an 
overdraft  of  $69,526.82.  The  second  dividend  was  declared  at  the 
close  of  the  past  season.  This  was  a  dividend  of  20  per  cent  and 
was  due  to  the  high  price  of  skins  at  the  sales  in  London,  owing  to 
a  scarcity  of  skins  from  other  sources.  In  this  connection  it  is 
important  to  note  that  no  sealing  was  done  by  the  Japanese  sealers 
last  season  in  Bering  Sea.  Notwithstanding  this  dividend  the  man- 
agers of  the  company  have  recently  assured  the  United  States  con- 
sul at  Victoria  (report  of  January  9,  1906)  that  they  were  still  ready 
to  dispose  of  their  vessels  and  stop  pelagic  sealing  on  the  basis  pro- 
posed before  the  Joint  High  Commission.  This  has  been  the  attitude 
of  the  Victoria  sealing  interests  ever  since  1898.  They  organized 
themselves  into  an  association  and  afterwards  into  a  company  partly 
for  the  purpose  of  arranging  for  a  sale  of  their  business,  and  the 
reports  of  the  United  States  consul  at  Victoria  have  shown  that  from 
time  to  time  they  have  informed  him  voluntarily  of  their  desire  to 
sell  out. 

In  connection  with  this  question  the  following  extract  from  a 
report  made  by  Mr.  Lembkey,  agent  in  charge  of  the  Pribilof 
Islands,  to  the  Secretar}^  of  Commerce  and  Labor  (January  6,  1906) 
may  be  of  interest: 

"As  to  the  approximate  amount  which  will  be  required  to  com- 
pensate the  Canadians  in  case  a  discontinuance  of  pelagic  sealing 
on  their  part  should  be  required,  I  learned  the  following  in  1903 
from  confidential  sources: 

"The  person  alleged  to  be  the  principal  owner  of  shares  in  the 
sealing  company  is  R.  P.  Rithet,  of  San  Francisco.  About  May  or 
June,  1903,  when  it  was  thought  the  High  Joint  Commission  would 
convene  the  following  winter  to  consider  the  Bering  Sea  question, 
Mr.  Rithet  was  approached  by  a  gentleman,  who  called  Mr.  Rithet's 
attention  to  the  depletion  of  the  seal  herd  and  the  probable  early 
collapse  of  the  company.  It  was  suggested  to  Mr.  Rithet  that  it 
would  be  better  for  the  company  to  take  what  it  could  get  from  this 
Government  for  its  sealing  interests,  in  consideration  of  a  cessation 
of  pelagic  sealing,  rather  than  to  have  these  interests  on  its  hands  a 
dead  loss. 

"Mr.  Rithet  was  favorably  impressed  with  the  proposition  and 
the  following  plan  was  suggested  to  him  as  the  best  means  of  accom- 
plishing the  required  end: 

"  I.  Mr.  Rithet,  or  some  other  person  in  the  ccjnfidence  of  the 
Canadian  Government,  was  to  obtain  an  option  on  the  shares  of 
the  Sealing  Company. 

"2.  After  obtaining  this  option,  the  holder  thereof  (being  practi- 
cally the  sole  owner  of  the  Canadian  sealing  industry)  was  to  go 
before  the  Canadian  Government,  assuming   the   jxjsition   that  the 


8o 

depletion  of  the  seal  herd  had  rendered  pelagic  sealing  unprofitable; 
that  its  continued  decrease  would,  of  itself,  soon  put  the  Canadian 
sealers  out  of  business;  that  the  sealing  vessels  were  fast  deteriora- 
ting, and  that  it  was  obviously  better  to  sell  out  for  a  good,  round 
sum  than  to  permit  the  business  to  die  of  its  own  accord;  that,  as 
the  sole  owner  of  the  industry,  he  had  the  right  to  ask  his  Govern- 
ment to  cooperate  to  effect  a  sale  of  the  company's  holdings  to  the 
United  States  Government. 

"3.  The  holder  of  this  option  was  to  induce  the  Canadian  Govern- 
ment, in  consideration  of  the  sale  of  the  stock,  to  {a)  abandon  seal- 
ing, to  (^)  pass  laws  prohibiting  British  subjects  and  vessels  from 
engaging  in  that  pursuit,  and  to  (c)  bind  the  matter  by  treaty  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 

"The  question  of  price  was  then  considered,  the  gentleman 
asserting  that  $5  a  share  would  be  ample  payment,  but  Mr.  Rithet 
contending  that  $5  was  too  little;  he  thought,  however,  that  the 
deal  might  be  put  through  on  a  basis  of  $7.50  per  share.  At  $7.50 
per  share,  it  would  require  ^251,092.50  to  purchase  the  entire  issued 
stock. 

"Mr.  Rithet  told  his  visitor  he  would  give  the  matter  his  atten- 
tion, and  would  soon  leave  for  Victoria,  where  he  would  endeavor 
to  tie  up  by  option  as  much  of  the  stock  as  he  could. 

"Nothing  further  is  known  by  me  as  to  Mr.  Rithet's  subsequent 
action  in  the  matter." 

The  United  States  consul  at  Victoria  reported  (January  6,  1905) 
that  the  Sealing  Company  stock  was  offered  for  sale  there  at  $2.50 
per  share.  In  1904  it  was  quoted  at  $6  per  share  in  San  Francisco. 
No  more  recent  quotations  have  been  reported. 

The  invasion  of  Bering  Sea  by  the  Japanese  sealers  is  a  recent 
development  in  the  situation  which  may  be  expected  to  further  de- 
press the  value  of  the  Canadian  sealing  interests.  The  Japanese, 
being  unaffected  by  the  Paris  award  regulations,  are  free  to  hunt 
with  firearms  and  whenever  and  wherever  they  find  seals  outside  of 
the  United  States  territorial  limits,  which  of  course  gives  them  great 
advantages  over  the  Canadians,  who  are  much  hampered  by  these 
regulations  in  competing  with  them. 

Moreover,  the  Japanese  hunting  not  only  diminishes  the  number 
of  seals  available  for  Canadian  hunting,  but  it  is  reported  that  the 
use  of  firearms  by  the  Japanese  so  alarms  the  seals  that  hunting 
with  spears,  to  which  the  Canadians  are  restricted,  has  become 
much  more  difficult.  The  coming  of  the  Japanese  may  be  bad  for 
the  seals,  but  it  is  likely  in  one  way  or  another  to  hasten  the  settle- 
ment of  the  seal  question. 

Local  interests  at  Victoria^  British  Colutnbia. 

It  is  shown  by  the  official  records  of  the  sealing  industry  that 
at  the  time  of  its  greatest  prosperity  only  about  six  hundred  white 
men  and  a  like  number  of  Indians  were  employed  as  hunters  and 
crew.      At  the  present  time  the  number  has  shrunk  to  less  than  half. 


It  appears,  however,  on  the  authority  of  Sir  Wilfrid  Laurier,  that 
the  white  men  so  employed  did  not  strictly  represent  local  interests. 
Sir  Wilfrid  stated  on  this  subject,  in  writing  to  Mr.  Foster  (Novem- 
ber 24,  1897) : 

•'The  prohibition  of  pelagic  sealing  for  a  year  would  practically 
destroy  the  business  for  several  years,  because  the  masters,  the 
mates,  and  the  white  crews,  for  the  larger  part  belonging  to  other 
parts  of  Ca'nada,  would  leave  British  Columbia."  (Foreign  Rela- 
tions, 1897,  p.  321.) 

Apart  from  the  question  of  the  men  actually  employed  on  the 
vessels,  however,  the  people  of  Victoria  have  had  a  substantial  inter- 
est in  the  past  in  having  the  business  continued.  It  was  stated  at  a 
meeting  of  the  Victoria  Board  of  Trade  in  December,  1903,  that  the 
industry  then  gave  employment  to  over  six  hundred  men  and  was 
tlie  support  of  nearly  two  thousand  persons  and  nearly  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars  was  disbursed  annually  by  the  company  among 
Victoria  people. 

The  accounts  of  the  company  show  that  this  statement  of  the 
amount  expended  annually  was  substantially  correct  in  1903,  but  in 
the  past  two  seasons  the  amount  has  diminished  to  less  than  ^150.000 
each  year. 

The  people  of  Victoria  until  the  past  year  have  always  vigorously 
opposed  any  movement  for  the  termination  of  the  sealing  business, 
as  appears  from  the  reports  made  from  time  to  time  by  the  United 
States  consul  there. 

At  the  extra  session  of  Congress  in  November,  1903,  a  resolution 
was  introduced  in  the  Senate  urging  a  readjustment  of  the  sealing 
regulations.  The  United  States  consul  at  Victoria,  British  Colum- 
bia, reported  (Decembers,  1903)  that  this  had  created  an  impression 
there  that  steps  would  soon  be  taken  to  wind  up  pelagic  sealing,  and 
that— 

"Repeated  meetings  have  been  held  by  the  Victoria  Board  of 
Trade  on  the  subject,%ind  some  bitter  language  used  by  residents 
and  business  men  of  Victoria,  in  the  fear  that  this  industry,  which 
as  stated  by  them  gives  employment  to  over  six  hundred  men,  is  the 
support  of  near  two  thousand  persons,  and  the  fountain  from  which 
near  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  is  disbursed  here,  may  be 
abolished." 

As  appears  above,  the  sealing  interests,  which  in  1900  had  been 
organized  into  a  corporation  known  as  the  "Victoria  Scaling  Com- 
pany," were  more  than  willing  to  dispose  of  their  entire  ileet  on  the 
same  basis  which  was  agreed  toby  the  Joint  High  Commission.  The 
fleet  had  cost  a  large  amount  for  repairs  and  had  greatly  depreci- 
ated in  value  since  then;  not  more  than  half  the  vessels  were  in  use 
F  s 6 


82 

and  no  new  ones  had  been  added;  the  company  had  not  declared  a 
dividend  up  to  that  time;  and  the  Japanese,  who  were  not  subject 
to  the  restrictions  of  the  Paris  award  regulations,  had  invaded 
Bering  Sea  and  cut  into  the  Canadian  profits.  At  these  meetings  at 
Victoria,  therefore,  the  members  of  the  Sealing  Company  "stoutly 
defended  their  right  to  sell  their  property  if  they  saw  fit."  Never- 
theless, the  Victoria  Board  of  Trade,  by  a  vote  of  3  to  i,  adopted 
the  following  resolution: 

"Whereas,  the  Victoria,  B.  C,  Board  of  Trade  has  reason  to 
believe  that  powerful  influence,  alien  in  sympathy  and  character,  is 
being  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Imperial  and  Dominion  Governments 
to  secure  the  abolishment  of  pelagic  sealing  under  the   British  flag; 

"And  whereas,  the  sealing  industry  being  of  great  importance  as 
a  source  of  revenue  to  the  city  of  Victoria,  its  abolishment  would  be  a 
serious  blow  to  the  business  interests  of  this  community: 

""Be  it  therefore  resolved.  That  the  Victoria,  B.  C,  Board  of  Trade 
does  hereby  urge  upon  the  Imperial,  Dominion,  and  Provincial  Gov- 
ernments the  great  necessity  of  fostering,  safeguarding,  and  per- 
petuating the  sealing  industry,  and  that  this  board  most  earnestly 
protests  against  consideration  being  given  to  any  proposal  whatever 
that  shall  tend  to  the  abolishment  of  the  rights  of  pelagic  sealing  to 
British  subjects : 

"•Be  it  further  resolved,  That  copies  of  this  preamble  and  resolu- 
tion be  sent  to  Sir  Wilfrid  Laurier,  to  the  Colonial  Secretary  of  the 
Imperial  Government,  to  the  Hon.  Richard  McBride,  and  to  each 
Victoria  member  of  the  Dominion  and  Provincial  Governments,  and 
that  the  provincial  government  be  urged  to  do  all  in  its  power  to 
further  safeguard  the  interests  of  Victoria  and  the  Province." 

Afterwards,  the  following  additional  resolution  was  unanimously 
adopted: 

'^ Be  it  resolved,  That  no  consideration  be  given  to  a  long  close 
season  that  shall  not  be  equally  binding  upon  all  who  are  engaged 
in  sealing  on  land  or  sea,  and  would  further  urge  the  necessity  for 
the  removal  of  such  restrictions  as  at  present  place  British  subjects 
on  an  unequal  footing  with  other  nations  in  the  sealing  industry. 

''Be  it  further  resolved.  That  a  delegation  be  appointed  to  wait 
upon  the  provincial  government  to  present  this  resolution  and  to 
report  to  this  board  from  time  to  time. 

"■Be  it  further  resolved,  That  this  be  embodied  in  the  resolution 
just  passed." 

On  March  21,  1905,  however,  the  United  States  consul  at  Victoria 
reported  a  change  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  Victoria. 
His  report  runs  as  follows: 

"The  sentiment  of  the  people  of  Victoria  in  regard  to  the  dis- 
posal of  the  fleet  and  surrender  of  Canadian  claim  to  pelagic  sealing, 
which  in  1903,  as  shown  by  action  of  Victoria  Board  of  Trade,  was 
strongly  adverse,  has  altered  greatly.  The  feeling  is  now  not  unfa- 
vorable to  a  settlement  of  this  matter. 


S3 

"It  is  also  felt  that  events  have  so  changed  that  the  cessation  of 
sealing  would  not  have  so  disastrous  an  effect  on  the  commercial 
interests  of  Victoria.  The  fisheries  of  British  Columbia  in  halibut, 
salmon,  etc.,  have  so  developed  that  employment  could  now  more 
easily  be  secured  for  schooners  and  hunters  now  engaged  in  sealing. 
The  removal  of  restrictions  on  salmon  traps  is  also  regarded  as  open- 
ing a  new  and  extensive  field  for  fishermen  of  this  Province." 

In  answer  to  a  request  from  the  Secretary  of  State  for  data  show- 
ing a  "comparison  between  the  value  of  20  per  cent  of  the  killing  on 
land  from  a  restored  herd  and  the  value  of  the  present  pelagic  seal- 
ing," the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  wrote  (January  7,  1906) 
as  follows : 

"The  restored  herd  would  probably  jaeld  60,000  annually.  At 
|5io.  22j^  per  skin  this  would  amount  to  a  revenue  of  ^613,500;  20 
per  cent  of  this  would  be  $122,700.  The  gross  value  of  the  pelagic 
catch  for  1904  was  approximately  $185,000,  but  the  working  net 
balance,  after  deducting  the  cost  of  operating  the  schooners,  would 
not  exceed  $30,000.  In  1905,  however,  owing  to  the  large  advance 
(40  per  cent)  in  the  market  price  of  pelagic  skins  over  the  preceding 
year,  they  probably  received  for  their  catch  in  the  neighborhood  of 
$300,000,  an  increase  in  gross  receipts  over  1904  of  over  $100,000. 
It  is  surprising  to  note  that  while  the  price  of  the  Pribilof  Islands 
skins  (known  to  the  trade  as  'Alaskas')  remained  stationary,  *the 
price  of  pelagic  skins  taken  from  the  same  herd  advanced  40  per 
cent.  It  is  believed  that  1905  was  the  most  successful  year  for  the 
Sealing  Company  occurring  for  some  time  past. 

"The  annual  statements  of  the  Victoria  Sealing  Company  (Lim- 
ited) give  the  working  balances  for  the  years  1902,  1903,  and  1904 
as  follows: 

"1902 $11,331.  17 

"1903 19,  852.41 

"1904 27,949.71 

"These  working  balances  are  taken  from  the  company's  own 
figures,  and  in  arriving  at  them  the  cost  of  operating  the  schooners 
is  first  deducted  from  the  gross  income." 

In  the  1905  account  this  item,  which  is  called  in  the  accounts 
"  Balance  from  working  account,"  was  $102,228.53. 

In  this  connection  it  is  stated  in  the  company's  annual  report  for 
1905  that  the  prices  for  skins  that  year  were  "the  highest  ever 
obtained  since  the  commencement  of  pelagic  sealing,  and  must  not 
be  considered  a  criterion  for  futurf-  prices,  and  can  only  be  accounted 
for  in  the  shortage  of  skins  on  tlie  market,  as,  owing  to  the  war, 
tliere  was  a  very  small  catch  of  Japan  and  Cc^pper  Island  skins;  also 
a  shortage  from  otlicr  sources." 


84 

British  interests. 

The  world's  market  for  seal  skins  has  always  been  at  London. 
Practically  the  entire  annual  catch  of  skins  from  all  over  the  world  is 
shipped  there  to  be  sold,  and  all  but  a  very  small  percentage  of  the 
skins  are  dressed  and  dyed  there  for  the  furriers.  In  the  case  of 
the  United  States  before  the  Paris  Tribunal  in  1893  it  was  stated 
that  at  that  time  ;^i,ooo,ooo  was  invested  in  the  seal-skin  industry 
in  the  city  of  London,  and  between  two  thousand  and  three  thousand 
persons  were  employed  directly  in  the  business  there.  The  average 
wages  paid  to  those  employed  in  the  British  industry  alone  was  about 
^947,000  per  annum.  Mr.  Dingley  estimated  that  the  total  number 
given  employment  in  London  in  1896  on  account  of  the  seal-skin 
industry  was  50,000  persons.  (H.  R.  Report  No.  2303,  57th  Cong., 
ist  sess.)  The  Canadian  industry  at  that  time  represented  a  capital 
of  about  ^500,000  and  gave  employment  to  about  six  hundred  white 
men. 

Most  of  the  skins  which  were  not  dressed  and  dyed  in  London 
were  prepared  for  the  furriers  in  France,  and  between  five  hundred 
and  six  hundred  persons  were  dependent  upon  the  seal-skin  industry 
there  in  1892.      (Fur  Seal  Arbitration,  vol.  2,  pp.  269-285.) 

The  number  of  persons  now  actually  employed  in  the  business  in 
London  is  estimated  by  Mr.  Alfred  Fraser,  of  Lampson  &  Co.,  the 
London  dealers,  at  less  than  five  hundred,  and  the  number  of  skins 
sold  annually  from  all  sources  has  diminished  from  about  200,000  in 
1891  to  about  65,000  in  1905. 

THE  AMERICAN  SEALING  INDUSTRY. 
Pelagic  sealing. 

The  act  of  Congress  approved  December  29,  1897,  prohibited 
pelagic  sealing  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  persons  owing 
obedience  to  the  laws  or  treaties  of  the  United  States,  or  persons 
belonging  to  or  on  board  of  a  vessel  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
waters  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  north  of  the  35th  degree  of  north  lati- 
tude, including  Bering  Sea  and  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk. 

This  prohibition  does  not  include  pelagic  sealing  in  southern 
waters,  but  no  sealing  vessels  under  the  American  flag  have  been 
reported  in  those  waters  since  1897,  with  the  exception  of  one  in 
1898. 

It  has  been  rumored  that  American  capital  is  still  invested  and 
American  citizens  or  persons  owing  obedience  to  the  laws  of  this 
country  have  been  engaged  in  sealing  since  1897  under  the  British 


85 

and  Japanese  flags.  Inquiry  as  to  the  accuracy  of  these  reports 
has  been  made  from  time  to  time,  and  the  matter  is  still  under 
investigation. 

Pribilof  Islands. 

The  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  is  empowered  by  law  and 
under  the  lease  of  the  sealing  privileges  on  these  islands  to  impose 
restrictions  limiting  the  number  of  seals  which  may  be  taken  annually. 
The  killing  of  female  seals  has  always  been  prohibited. 

Under  the  lease  from  1870  to  1890  the  maximum  number  per- 
mitted annually  was  100,000.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  as  shown  by 
statistics  prepared  by  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  the 
number  actually  taken  every  year,  except  the  first  year  and  four 
others,  exceeded  this  maximum,  but  the  total  number  taken  for  the 
twent}'  years  amounted  to  about  1,956,239,  making  an  average  of 
less  than  the  maximum  limit  allowed  for  each  year. 

Under  the  lease  for  twenty  years  from  1890,  which  is  still  in 
force,  the  lessees  were  restricted  by  the  terms  of  the  lease  to  60,000 
for  the  first  year.  The  number  actually  taken  was  between  25,000 
and  30,000.  For  the  three  following  years  the  number  was  restricted 
by  the  modus  vivendi  with  Great  Britain  to  7,500,  although  the  num- 
ber actually  taken  in  1891  was  in  excess  of  this  number,  owing  to 
the  fact  that  the  officials  on  the  island  were  not  notified  of  the  re- 
strictions until  after  more  than  the  permitted  number  of  skins  had 
been  taken. 

Thereafter,  regulations  were  imposed  by  the  Government  limit- 
ing the  number  of  skins  to  be  taken  annually  as  follows:  In  1894, 
20,000;  1895,  15,000;  1896,  30,000;  1897,  20,000;  and  thereafter 
30,000,  until  1904,  when  the  limit  was  reduced  to  15,000,  and  the 
killing  of  seals  under  two  years  old  was  forbidden,  and  2,000  two 
and  three  year  bachelors  were  reserved.  The  official  reports  show 
that  during  the  ten  years  from  1894  to  1903,  inclusive,  the  lessees 
were  unable  in  any  year  to  get  the  full  quota  allowed,  except  in 
1896,  when  they  took  30,654  skins.  The  number  for  five  of  these 
years  averaged  about  17,000,  and  for  the  other  four  years  the  aver- 
age was  about  22,000.  The  numbers  varied  so  from  year  to  year 
that  no  regular  rate  of  decrease  can  be  shown  by  them.  Under  the 
new  regulations  in  1904  the  number  of  skins  taken  was  13,128,  and 
in  1905  the  number  was  14,386.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  under 
present  conditions  the  lessees  are  unable  to  get  even  the  very  lim- 
ited number  allowed,  from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  num- 
ber actually  taken  represents  every  available  seal  that  can  be  found. 
The  above  figures  are  taken  from  statistics  furnished  i)y  tiie  Dcpai't- 
ment  of  Commerce  and  Labor. 


86 


The  following  table  shows   the   decline   of  the  Alaskan    fur-seal 
herd  from  1874  to  1905: 

Sea/s  of  all  classes. 


Year. 


Surveys,  etc. 


Bulls,  cows, 
and  pups. 


1874 


1897 
1900 

igo2 
1904 
1905 


Surveys  of  Elliott  and  Maynard,  ordered  by  act  approved  April  22,  1874,  on 
breeding  grounds  or  rookeries 

Survey  of  Elliott,  ordered  by  act  approved  April  5,  1890 

/Survey  of  Canadian  Commissioners 

iSurvey  of  American  Commissioners 

Survey  of  Jordan-Thompson  Commission 

Survey  of  United  States  Fish  Commission  (a  decline  of  over  20  per  cent  since 


1897). 


Estimate,  based  on  ratio  of  decline,  as  above.. 


,700,000 

959.655 
,000,000 

, 000 , 000 
450,000 

360 , 000 
224,000 
243,101 
223,009 


*  Estimated. 

Note. — This  table  is  taken  from  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  June  2,  1902, 
printed  as  H.  R.  Report  No.  2303,  57th  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  with  the  numbers  for  1904  and  1905  added 
from  the  reports  of  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  printed  as  Senate  Doc.  No.  98,  59th 
Cong.,  ist  sess. 

Income  derived  by  the  Govermnent. 

Under  the  lease  from  1870  to  1890  the  United  States  received 
$5,981,036.50,  and  under  the  lease  of  1890  up  to  April  i,  1906,  $2,852,- 
901.17,  making  a  total  of  $8,833,937.67. 

These  are  the  figures  given  in  the  letter  of  January  7,  1906,  from 
the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  to  the  Secretary  of  State  and 
are  intended  to  show  only  the  payments  made  by  the  lessees  to  the 
Government. 

In  addition  to  the  amounts  received  by  the  Government  from  the 
lessees  the  Government  is  relieved  of  part  of  the  expense  of  caring 
for  the  natives  on  the  islands,  which  is  imposed  upon  the  lessees  by 
the  terms  of  the  lease  and  should  figure  in  the  income  account. 

The  number  of  inhabitants  on  the  islands  has  averaged  about 
three  hundred  during  the  American  occupation,  and  for  the  twenty 
years  under  the  first  lease  they  were  paid  as  their  earnings  about 
$755,672.87.  (Report  of  Charles  J.  Goff,  Treasury  agent,  July  31, 
1890,  printed  at  p.  221,  H.  R.  Doc.  No.  175,  54th  Cong.,  ist  sess.) 
In  addition  to  this  the  lessees  constructed  buildings  and  provided 
tools,  live  stock,  sealing  plant,  boats,  and  furniture  for  their  use, 
which  were  sold  to  the  new  lessees  in  1890  for  $67,264.02,  appraised 
at  that  time  as  the  full  cash  value.  (/</.,  p.  225.)  The  earnings  of 
the  natives  have  decreased  since  that  time  with  the  falling  off  in  the 
number  of  seals  taken,  but  the  expense  of  supporting  the  natives 
still  represents  a  considerable  annual  outlay. 


^7 

The  customs  dut}'  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  which  the  United 
States  Government  received  from  the  importation  of  seal  skins 
dressed  and  dyed  in  London  was  stated  in  1890  to  amount  to  about 
$375?ooo  annually.      (Fur  Seal  Arbitration,  vol.  2,  p.  270.) 

The  expenses  of  administration  were  stated  by  Mr.  Hitchcock, 
then  Chief  Clerk  in  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  in  his 
testimony  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  in  1904,  to  be  about  $30,000  a  year.  Mr.  Hitchcock 
further  stated : 

"The  expense  of  revenue  cutters  in  Alaska  waters  last  year  I 
understand  aggregated  about  $160,000,  but  only  a  portion  of  this 
sum  can  be  properly  charged  to  the  seal  service.  Just  how  much  I 
do  not  know.  On  the  other  hand,  the  amount  of  revenue  derived 
from  the  seals  has  averaged  about  $200,000  a  year." 

On  the  question  of  the  cost  of  the  patrol  maintained  in  Bering 
Sea  by  the  United  States,  Hon.  John  W.  Foster  stated  in  his  letter 
of  December  2,  1897,  to  Sir  Wilfrid  Laurier  (Foreign  Relations, 
1897,  p.  323)  that  the  expense  "for  the  past  four  years  has  averaged 
about  $150,000  annually." 

In  arriving  at  the  net  return  to  the  United  States  Government 
from  the  sealing  industry  the  cost  of  policing  Bering  Sea,  the 
Treasury  agents  on  the  islands,  the  Bering  Sea  Arbitration  Tribunal 
and  Claims  Commission  and  award  for  damages,  and  of  the  numer- 
ous investigations  of  the  seal  herd  and  conferences  and  reports  on 
the  same,  and  other  considerable  expenses  incurred  in  connection 
with  the  negotiations  on  this  question  must  also  be  deducted.  Some 
of  the  expenses  chargeable  against  this  Government  on  this  account 
between  1890  and  1895,  inclusive,  with  some  estimated  amounts  to 
1901,  are  given  in  an  official  statement  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury printed  in  House  Document  No.  197,  54th  Congress,  ist  session, 
as  follows : 

"As  to  the  cost  of  policing  Bering  Sea  and  the  North  Pacific  each 
year  since  1890,  I  have  to  state  that  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy,  upon  request,  has  informed  this  Department  that  the  cost 
of  maintaining  vessels  of  the  United  States  Navy  in  these  waters 
since  1890,  including  pay  and  rations  of  officers  and  crews  and  re- 
pairs to  the  vessels  during  and  immediately  following  the  perform- 
ance of  said  patrol  duty,  was  as  follows: 

'  1890  No  patrol  by  Navy. 

'  1891 |i 33,  281.  64 

'  1892 233,931.31 

'  1893 183.067.  74 

'  1894 ^52,  768.  18 

'  1895 No  patrol  by  Navy. 


"The  expenses  incurred  by  revenue  cutters  in  patrolling  Bering 
Sea  from  1890  to  1895,  inclusive,  including  pay  and  rations  of 
officers  and  men,  are  as  follows: 

1890 $36,  846.  66 

1 891 51,  650.  70 

1892 66,  672.  57 

1893 47,  385-  79 

1S94 56,439-63 

1895 148,677.74 

"  From  these  figures  it  would  seem  that  the  total  cost  of  policing 
these  waters  during  the  period  in  question  is  $1,410,721.96. 

"The  amounts  which  have  been  expended  by  the  Government 
for  the  support  of  the  native  inhabitants  of  the  seal  islands  of  Alaska 
follow: 

"  1S93 |ii,337-32 

"  1894 18,319.44 

"  1895 25,  563.  21 


"Am  0  u  n  ts  expended. 

Policing  waters |i,  410,  721.  96 

Support  of  natives *55,  219.  97 

Salaries  and  expenses  of  agents *22  7,  163.  04 

Cost  of  Paris  Tribunal,  1893 234,000.00 

Damages  paid  pelagic  sealers,  Halifax,  i8g6,  and  cost  of  counsel. 

United  States t486,  000.  00 

Cost  of  revenue  marine  patrol,  1896-1901 892,  062.  00 

■  Cost  of  natives'  support,  1896-1901 150,  000.  00 

Cost  of  Treasury  agents,  1896-1901 90,  000.  00 

Cost  of  Jordan-Thompson  Commission,  1896-97 30,  000.  00 


"  Total  cost,  1890-1901  3,  575>  i66- 97" 

Diniinishiiig  rentals. 

Under  the  decision  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  the 
case  of  North  American  Commercial  Company  z;.  United  States  (171 
U.  S.,  1 10)  the  lessees  are  entitled  to  a  reduction  of  the  $60,000 
annual  rental  fixed  by  the  lease,  in  the  proportion  that  the  number 
of  100,000  limited  by  statute  as  the  maximum  number  of  seals  to  be 
taken  bears  to  the  number  permitted  to  be  taken  under  the  restric- 
tions imposed.  No  reduction  is  allowed,  however,  in  the  tax  of  $2 
per  skin  and  the  bonus  of  $7.62^  per  skin  fixed  by  the  lease. 

The  Government  is  at  liberty,  without  liability  for  damages  for 
breach  of  contract,  to  prohibit  absolutely  the  taking  of  seals,  if 
deemed  necessary  to  prevent  the  extermination  of  the  herd.  In  that 
case,  however,  it   seems  that  the  lessees  would   be  entitled  to  treat 

*  Five  hundred  and  seventy-two  thousand  and  sixty-six  dollars  and  thirty-eight  cents  expended 
by  the  Government  from  1870-1905  for  maintaining  agents  and  for  support  of  natives  independently 
of  the  amounts  expended  by  the  lessees.  (Lemky's  Report  to  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor, 
December  6,  1905.) 

t  The  amount  finally  paid  to  Great  Britain  in  settlement  of  these  claims  was  $473,151,  from  which 
should  be  deducted  $83,073.72  and  interest,  being  the  amount  realized  by  the  United  States  from  the 
sale  of  the  Canadian  vessels  and  property  seized. 


89 

the  contract  as  rescinded.  The  question  of  whether  or  not  the  Gov- 
ernment would  be  required  to  compensate  the  company  for  the 
diminished  value  of  its  plant  and  equipment  resulting  from  such 
action  was  not  passed  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case 
referred  to.  The  decision  in  that  case  is  reviewed  more  fully  at 
page  56  et  seq.  of  this  report. 

Cotiwiercial  interests. 

Itdoes  not  appearthat  the  sealing  industry  as  now  carried  on  bene- 
fits directly  any  important  commercial  interests  in  this  country.  The 
work  of  dressing  and  dyeing  the  skins  and  preparing  them  for  the 
furriers  never  became  of  any  importance  here.  That  branch  of 
the  business  has  always  been  almost  wholly  carried  on  in  London. 
It  is  stated  in  the  proceedings  before  the  Fur  Seal  Arbitration  Tri- 
bunal at  Paris  that  about  three  hundred  persons  were  then  employed 
in  dressing  and  dyeing  seal  skins  in  this  country.  (Fur  Seal  Arbi- 
tration, vol.  3,  p.  538.)  Since  then  that  branch  of  the  business  has 
diminished  rather  than  increased.  The  extent  and  value  of  the  busi- 
ness in  London  is  shown  elsewhere  in  connection  with  the  British 
and  Canadian  interests  in  the  sealing  industry. 

The  act  of  December  29,  1897,  forbids  the  importation  into  this 
country  of  skins  taken  by  pelagic  sealers  in  the  waters  of  tlie  Pacific 
Ocean  north  of  the  35th  degree  of  north  latitude.  This  excludes  all 
but  the  skins  taken  on  land  from  the  American  and  Asiatic  herds 
and  those  taken  either  on  land  or  at  sea  south  of  the  specified  degree 
of  latitude. 

In  1890,  when  the  business  had  reached  its  highest  point  of  pros- 
perity, the  furriers,  manufacturers,  and  merchants  of  the  United 
States  realized  annually  on  Alaskan  skins  consumed  in  the  United 
States  the  sum  of  $2,100,000,  and  the  aggregate  amount  annualh- 
paid  as  wages  to  those  employed  in  the  American  manufactories  was 
$490,000,  and  the  profit  to  the  lessees  annually  was  $325,000  over 
and  above  the  wages  paid  to  the  natives  on  the  island,  amounting 
to  about  $40,000  annually.  The  number  of  persons  employed  in  the 
manufacture  and  handling  of  seal  skins  in  the  United  States  at  that 
time  was  estimated  at  3,360.      (Fur  Seal  Arbitration,  vol.  2,  p.  280.) 

THE   JAPANESE   SEALING  INDUSTRY. 
Japanese  seal  rookeries. 

The  only  seal  rcjokeries  which  Japan  has  controlled  since  the  seal 
question  became  an  international  one  are  the  rookeries  on  Robben 
Island  and  those  which  formerly  existed  on  the  Kurile  Islands.  In 
both  instances  these  islands  came  into  the  possession  of  Jai)an  i)y 
cession    from    Russia.      In    1875  Russia   ceded    to   Japan   llic    middle 


90 

and  northern  Kurile  Islands  where  the  rookeries  of  the  Kurile  seal 
herd  were  located,  taking  in  exchange  the  southern  end  of  Sakhalin 
Island,  which  in  turn  at  the  close  of  the  Japan-Russian  war  in  1905 
was  re-ceded  to  Japan  and  carried  with  it  Robben  Island,  lying  in 
close  proximity  to  its  shore. 

Robben  Island. — In  the  history  of  the  seal  question  this  island  has 
always  been  grouped  with  the  Commander  Islands  (Copper  and 
Bering  Islands),  which  belong  to  Russia,  and  its  relation  to  the 
question  will  for  convenience  be  considered  herein  elsewhere  in  con- 
nection with  those  islands.  Attention  is  directed  at  this  point,  how- 
ever, to  the  fact  that  the  acquisition  of  this  island  by  Japan  may  be 
expected  to  give  that  country  an  interest  in  protecting  the  seals, 
which  it  has  not  had  since  the  destruction  of  its  Kurile  Islands  herd. 

Kurile  Islands. — It  was  estimated  that  there  were  about  22,000 
seals  in  all  on  the  rookeries  of  these  islands  in  1881,  when  they  first 
attracted  the  attention  of  foreign  sealers.  In  that  year  the  rookeries 
were  raided  and  about  7,750  seals  were  taken.  During  the  three 
following  years  about  the  same  number  was  taken  in  all  by  the 
Japanese  and  foreign  sealers,  and  in  1885  the  foreigners  again  raided 
the  islands  and  took  about  6,500  skins..  This  "practically  cleaned 
out"  the  principal  rookeries.  In  the  two  following  years  the  for- 
eigners again  visited  the  islands  and  took  what  was  left,  getting 
about  1,000  skins  in  each  year.  In  1896  it  was  reported  that  the 
remnant  of  the  Japanese  herd  possibly  amounted  to  fifty,  but  proba- 
bly to  not  more  than  thirty  seals  all  told.  (Report  on  Fur  Seal 
Investigations,  1897,  pt.  4,  pp.  237-260,  Stejneger's  Report;  Memo- 
randum issued  in  1891  by  Japanese  Government  on  Seal  Fisheries 
in  Japan,  Fur  Seal  Arbitration,  vol.  6,  p.  228;  and  Report  of  British 
Commission,  1892,  /</.,  p.   135.) 

The  responsibility  for  the  raiding  seems  to  have  been  about 
equally  divided  between  the  Canadians  and  Americans. 

The  raids  on  these  rookeries  and  their  threatened  destruction 
resulted  in  the  enactment  of  laws  by  Japan  intended  to  protect  its 
seal  herd  and  the  sea  otter,  in  which  Japan  was  even  more  inter- 
ested than  in  seals.  The  attempt  was  futile,  however,  because  Japan 
was  unable  to  control  her  own  ports  or  punish  foreigners  for  violat- 
ing her  laws,  owing  to  the  system  of  consular  jurisdiction  which  was 
then  in  force.  International  cooperation  was  the  only  solution  of 
the  difficulty,  and  in  1887-88,  when  the  United  States  attempted  to 
secure  the  concurrence  of  Great  Britain,  Japan,  and  Russia  in  the 
protection  of  the  Alaskan  herd,  Japan  agreed,  on  condition  that 
like  protection  be  given  to  the  Japanese  seals  and  sea  otter.  At 
that  date  the  Japanese  herd  might  have  been  saved,  but  the  pro- 
posed arrangement  came  to  nothing,  owing  to  the  objections  of  the 
Canadians. 


91 

The  Japanese  legislation  on  the  subject  up  to  that  time  was 
briefly  as  follows: 

As  early  as  1884  an  imperial  decree  was  issued  forbidding  the 
hunting  of  the  fur  seal  and  sea  otter  in  Japanese  waters  or  territory 
except  by  persons  with  a  special  permit,  and  in  1886  a  further  impe- 
rial decree  was  issued  requiring  that  all  skins  must  be  stamped  on 
landing  at  Japanese  ports,  and  forbidding  the  sale  of  unstamped 
skins,  excepting,  however,  the  skins  of  seals  and  sea  otter  caught 
within  the  territory  of  Russia  or  the  United  States  with  the  permis- 
sion of  those  Governments.  Owing  to  the  consular  jurisdiction 
above  referred  to,  however,  Japan  was  unable  to  enforce  this  law.  as 
Great  Britain  refused  to  observe  it.  This  action  by  Great  Britain 
was  cited  by  the  Japanese  delegates  at  the  conference  in  1897  at 
Washington  between  Russia,  Japan,  and  the  United  States  as  an 
illustration  of  the  difficulties  encountered  by  Japan  in  dealing  with 
this  question  on  account  of  extraterritoriality.  With  reference 
to  this  law  it  was  stated  at  that  conference: 

"Japan  wanted  to  pass  a  law  to  stop  seal  skins  from  coming  into 
her  ports  except  with  a  stamp  on  them.  The  consent  of  the  powers 
was  asked  and  given  by  all  but  Great  Britain.  She  made  no  answer. 
Assuming  a  tacit  consent  the  ordinance  was  issued  and  the  skins  on 
a  British  vessel  were  seized,  but  Great  Britain  said  she  had  not 
agreed  to  the  measure,  and  nothing  could  be  done." 

In  1888  regulations  were  issued  by  the  Japanese  Government 
providing,  in  brief,  that  there  should  be  an  open  season  between 
April  15  and  October  31  ;  that  the  hunting  in  any  one  year  should 
be  permitted  only  in  one  of  the  three  divisions  into  which  the  Kurile 
Islands  were  divided,  the  other  two  divisions  being  given  in  turn  a 
two  years'  rest;  and  that  sealing  vessels  must  be  specially  licensed 
and  fly  a  special  flag.  These  regulations  remained  practically  inop- 
erative. (Fur  Seal  Investigations,  1896-97,  pt.  4,  p.  322.)  In  the 
same  year  an  exclusive  license  for  sealing  was  issued  to  a  Japanese 
company  for  a  period  of  five  years. 

Pelagic  sealing. 

Until  1891  pelagic  sealing  was  almost  unknown  on  the  Asiatic 
side  of  the  Pacific,  although  foreign  sealers  had  frequently  visited 
and  raided  the  rookeries,  as  above  stated.  In  that  and  the  following 
year,  when  Bering  Sea  was  first  closed  to  the  Canadian  and  Ameri- 
can pelagic  sealers  by  the  modus  vivendi  with  Great  Britain,  they  began 
to  cross  over  to  the  Asiatic  waters.  In  1892  eigiit  schooners,  all 
American,  visited  the  Japanese  coast  and  caught  between  12,000  and 
14,000  seals.  These  seals  taken  in  these  waters,  although  technically 
known  as  the  Japanese  coast  catch,  in  reality  belonged  to  the  Russian 


92 

herd  from  the  Robben  and  Commander  Islands,  from  which  at  cer- 
tain seasons  the  seals  pass  along  the  Japanese  coast  and  frequent 
certain  feeding  grounds  there.  The  Japanese  herd  at  this  time  had 
already  been  almost  wholly  destroyed,  as  above  noted. 

In  the  following  year  (1893)  it  was  reported  that  22  Canadian  and 
31  American  vessels  visited  these  waters  and  caught,  respectively, 
about  30,000  and  25,000  seals.  Up  to  this  time  no  vessels  owned 
by  the  Japanese  had  engaged  in  pelagic  sealing,  but  the  success  of 
pelagic  sealing  in  Asiatic  waters  had  attracted  the  attention  of  the 
Japanese  Government,  and  in  1893-94  an  investigation  of  the  seal 
question  was  made  by  scientific  experts  and  a  report  on  the  subject, 
including  a  review  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Arbitration  Tribunal  at 
Paris  in  1893,  was  prepared.  As  a  result  the  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment on  the  seal  question  was  changed.  It  appeared  that  the  Japa- 
nese herd  was  no  longer  worth  protecting  and  that  the  existing  laws 
favored  the  foreigners  at  the  expense  of  the  Japanese. 

The  old  laws,  therefore,  were  repealed  and  a  new  law  was  enacted, 
taking  effect  January  i,  1896,  which  vested  in  the  Government  the 
control  of  sealing  and  sea-otter  hunting  and  made  it  necessary  for 
anyone  wishing  to  engage  in  the  business  to  procure  an  official 
license.  By  this  law  the  Government  put  itself  in  a  position  to  enter 
upon  negotiations  for  an  international  agreement  for  protecting  the 
seal  and  sea  otter,  if  an  opportunity  offered,  and  meanwhile  opened 
a  way  for  encouraging,  under  governmental  control,  pelagic  sealing 
by  its  subjects  on  equal  terms  with  foreigners. 

With  respect  to  the  sea  otter,  the  Japanese  position  was  more 
difficult.  The  protection  of  the  sea  otter  had  always  been  a  matter 
of  even  more  interest  to  Japan  than  the  protection  of  the  fur  seals, 
and  this  was  particularly  true  at  this  time,  as  the  Japanese  seal 
herd  had  already  been  practically  exterminated.  Experience  had 
shown,  however,  that  to  impose  restrictions  would  merely  serve  to 
give  the  foreigners  a  clear  field  at  the  expense  of  the  Japanese,  under 
the  prevailing  system  of  consular  jurisdiction  which  continued  until 
1899.  As  a  choice  of  evils,  therefore,  this  law  put  the  sea  otter  in 
the  same  class  with  the  seals,  and  anyone  with  a  license  was  free  to 
hunt  thern.  It  is  understood  that  the  licenses  during  the  continu- 
ance of  consular  jurisdiction  were  issued  to  anyone  as  a  matter  of 
course.  Whether  or  not  the  law  has  been  administered  with  less 
liberality  in  the  case  of  the  sea  otter  since  1899  does  not  appear. 

At  about  the  same  time  the  Japanese  adopted  the  policy  of  en- 
couraging deep-sea  fisheries,  and  a  law  for  that  purpose  was  enacted 
which,  by  means  of  a  bounty  granted  to  certain  classes  of  fishing 
vessels,  indirectly  encouraged  pelagic  sealing.  The  provisions  for 
"encouragement  money,"  as  it  is  termed,  in  force  i\pril  i,  1898, 
were  in  brief  as   follows:   An    annual    subsidy  of    10   yen,  or  $5,  per 


ton  for  sailing  vessels  up  to  200  tons,  and  15  yen,  or  $7.50,  per  ton 
for  steam  vessels  up  to  350  tons  (with  no  increase  for  higher  ton- 
nage) was  to  be  paid,  provided  that  four-fifths,  of  the  crew  were 
Japanese  and  that  the  vessel  was  registered  as  Japanese  and  belonged 
to  a  Japanese  subject  or  mercantile  company  of  which  the  partners 
or  shareholders  were  exclusively  Japanese.  It  was  further  provided 
that  the  following  vessels  were  not  qualified  to  receive  the  subsidy: 

"(i)  Vessels  of  foreign  make  registered  as  Japanese  after  the 
coming  into  operation  of  this  law,  and  being  5  years  old  at  the  date 
of  register. 

''  (2)   \^essels  more  than  15  years  old." 

A  further  bounty  of  10  yen  was  to  be  paid  to  each  of  the  crew 
according  to  a  fixed  schedule  regulating  the  size  of  the  crew  allowed 
in  proportion  to  the  tonnage  of  the  vessel.  (Report  of  Lieutenant- 
Commander  Marsh  on  Sealing  in  Japan,  January  20,  1902,  inclosed 
with  Minister  Buck's  letter  of  same  date;  MSS.,  State  Department.) 
In  October,  1905,  it  was  reported  that  this  subsidy  had  been  increased 
to  18  yen  per  ton  register,  with  the  same  annual  subsidy  of  10  yen  to 
each  member  of  the  crew. 

It  is  reported  by  the  American  consular  agent  at  Hakodate, 
Japan,  that — 

"  The  subsidy  as  now  paid  is  large  enough  to  pay  all  expenses 
for  a  season,  the  crew  being  on  a  lay;  everything  that  is  caught  is 
profit  and,  unless  the  vessel  is  lost,  there  can  be  no  loss  to  the 
owners." 

This  action  of  the  Japanese  Government  was  taken,  apparently, 
after  the  acquisition  of  Robben  Island  in  1905,  and  indicates  that  for 
the  present  at  least  the  possession  of  the  seal  rookeries  on  that  island 
has  made  no  change  in  the  policy  of  the  Government  on  the  seal 
question.  In  this  connection  it  must  also  be  noted  that  during  the 
Japanese-Russian  war  some  of  the  Japanese  sealers  raided  Robben 
Island  and  killed  off  nearly  all  the  seals  found  there.  A  permanent 
guard  has  now  been  stationed  on  the  island  by  the  Japanese  Gov- 
ernment, but  it  will  be  some  time  before  it  is  of  any  value  to  the 
Japanese,  and  the  protection  of  the  herd  against  pelagic  sealing 
enters  largely  into  the  question  of  its  recovery.  (Report  from  U.  S. 
consul-general  at  Yokohama,  January  29,  1906.) 

In  addition  to  this  system  of  bounties  the  Japanese  sealers  had 
great  natural  advantages  over  the  Canadian  pelagic  sealers  in  hav- 
ing close  at  hand  the  waters  in  which  the  seals  of  the  Russian  herd 
were  hunted  in  the  periods  of  their  migrations,  and  also  in  having 
their  home  ports  about  (,)nc  thousand  miles  nearer  than  the  Cana- 
dians to    the    hunting   grtjunds    in    the    vicinity  of   tlic    Russian    seal 


94 


rookeries.  The  effect  of  the  bounties,  together  with  these  natural 
advantages,  was  to  increase  rapidly  the  number  of  the  Japanese 
fleet,  and  it  soon  became  unprofitable  for  the  Canadians  to  compete 
with  them  in  the  Japan  coast  hunting,  although  they  still  con-tinued 
their  operations  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Russian  islands.  The  number 
of  Canadian  vessels  engaged  on  the  Japan  coast  dwindled  from  eleven 
in  1897  to  a  single  vessel  in  the  following  year,  and  since  then  the 
Canadians  have  practically  abandoned  those  hutiting  grounds, 
although  on  two  occasions  (1901  and  1902)  eight  or  nine  Canadian 
vessels  again  tried  their  luck  on  the  Japan  coast  but  without  any 
particular  success,  getting  in  all  an  average  of  about  325  each, 
which  hardly  justified  the  expense.  (See  Annual  Reports,  Cana- 
dian Deputy  Minister  of  Marine.) 

The  following  table  is  made  up  from  information  found  in  reports 
of  United  States  consuls  at  Japan  and  Victoria,  British  Columbia, 
and  in  diplomatic  correspondence  and  official  publications  and  the 
records  of  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor.  The  infor- 
mation available  is  not  complete  and  is  somewhat  conflicting;  the 
figures,  therefore,  can  not  be  relied  on  in  detail,  but  serve  to  show 
in  a  general  way  the  growth  and  condition  of  the  Japanese  pelagic 
sealing  business. 

Japanese  pelagic  sealing,  j8gj-igo^. 


Year. 


Number  of 
vessels. 


Japan 
coast  catch. 


Russian 
islands 
catch. 


Number  of 
vessels. 


Bering  Sea 

award  area 

catch. 


Total. 


1893. 


1897., 


1900.. 
1901.. 
igo2.. 
1903.. 
1904.. 
1905.. 


(?) 


§30 


965 
2,898 

3,319 
4,616 
4,757 
6,518 
7,533 
7,045 
9,780 
5,661 
6,726 
3>ioi 


(833?) 


(about  60?) 


3,495 
ig,749 
117,906 


(t) 
(?) 
(?) 


2,222 
349 


3,319 
4,616 
4,757 
6.518 
7,533 
7,04s 
9,780 
1^,378 
16,824 


*  It  was  reported  that  the  Russian  patrol  had  seized  si.x  Japanese  schooners  in  igoi  for  sealing 
within  the  30-mile  zone  around  the  Russian  islands. 

tSome;  number  not  reported. 

X  Four  thousand  si.x  hundred  and  fifty-four  taken  in  a  raid  on  Robben  Island. 

§  During  the  Japanese-Russian  war  two  Japanese  sealing  vessels  were  captured  by  Russians  and 
another  vessel  was  lost  at  sea. 

!I  Five  thousand  five  hundred  taken  in  a  raid  on  the  rookeries. 

^One  Japanese  vessel  took  399  on  American  northwest  coast. 
**  Seventeen  sea  otter  were  taken  on  the  Kurile  Islands  and  155  in  the  vicinity  of  Copper  Island. 

The  total  number  caught  by  Japanese  and  foreign  vessels  between 
1890  and  1897,  inclusive,  on  the  -Japanese  coast  was  about  228,052. 
(Fur  Seal  Investigations,  1896-97,  pt.  4,  p.  267.) 


95 

Japanese  sealers  in  Bering  Sea  and  foreigners  sealing  under  the 
Japanese  flag.  • 

The  first  appearance  of  the  Japanese  sealers  in  Bering  Sea  was 
reported  in  1901  and  marked  an  important  development  in  the 
Alaskan  seal  question. 

Ever  since  the  Canadian  and  American  pelagic  sealers  were  ex- 
cluded from  Bering  Sea  under  the  modus  vivendi  with  Great  Britain 
in  1891-1893  and  later  subjected  to  the  regulations  of  the  Paris 
award  in  1894,  reports  have  been  current  that  their  operations  were 
to  be  carried  on  in  the  protected  area  under  the  Japanese  flag. 

The  matter  was  one  of  considerable  importance  to  the  United 
States,  and  the  cooperation  of  the  Japanese  Government  was  asked 
in  enforcing  the  observance  of  the  award  regulations.     In  November, 

1893,  the  Japanese  Government  responded  that  measures  would  be 
taken  to  prevent  foreign  vessels  using  the  flag  of  Japan  to  evade  the 
seal-fisheries  regulations,  but  they  declined  to  require  bona  fide 
Japanese  vessels  to  observe  the  regulations  unless  they  should  be 
extended  to  include  the  Japanese  seal  fisheries.      (Foreign  Relations, 

1894,  Appendix  I,  p.  135.)  The  regulations  were  not  extended  to 
Asiatic  waters  for  reasons  which  have  been  reviewed  elsewhere,  but 
the  instructions  desired  were  issued  by  the  Japanese  Government  to 
the  Japanese  consuls  at  San  Francisco,  Vancouver,  and  other  foreign 
ports,  calling  attention  to  the  reported  plan  of  securing  a  Japanese 
registry  for  sealing  vessels  for  purposes  of  deception,  and  they  were 
directed  "to  act  in  the  matter  with  strict  caution,  so  that  no  certifi- 
cates shall  be  granted  to  parties  carrying  on  such  dishonorable 
business."     {^Id.,  p.  137.) 

The  measures  taken  by  Japan  at  that  time  and  since  to  prevent 
tlie  improper  use  of  the  Japanese  flag  for  pelagic  sealing  in  the  award 
area  have  not  prevented  Americans  and  Canadians  from  participating 
in  the  Japanese  sealing  industry,  but  the  extent  of  their  participation 
was  not  a  matter  of  any  particular  consequence  to  this  Government 
prior  to  1901,  when  sealers  under  the  Japanese  flag  first  api:»eared 
in  the  vicinity  of  the  Pribilof  Islands. 

During  the  years  between  1893  and  1897  there  was  a  group  of 
sealing  vessels  varying  from  seven  to  three  in  number,  of  Canadian 
or  American  ownership,  sailing  from  Japanese  ports  and  classed  as 
"vessels  domiciled  in  Japan,"  but  in  each  case  the  vessels  carried 
the  flag  of  the  country  of  ownership  and  were  employed  only  on  the 
Japan  coast.  In  1897  l)ut  three  of  these  were  left — one  Canadian 
and  two  American.  The  Canadian  vessel  was  lost  at  sea  during  that 
season  and  the  two  American  vessels  were  debarred  by  the  act  of 
Congress  of  December  29,  1897,  above  referrrd  to,  from  sealing 
under  the  American  flag  north  of    the  35th  degree  of  latitude.      Jusl 


96 

what  ultimately  became  of  them  and  the  other  four  does  not  appear, 
and  they  may  have  continued  in  the  business  under  Japanese  owner- 
ship  and  different  names. 

The  situation  as  disclosed  by  the  investigations  made  in  1901 
and  thereafter  is  in  brief  as  follows: 

On  October  24,  1901,  it  was  reported  by  the  United  States  con- 
sul at  Victoria,  British  Columbia,  that  two  vessels,  the  Josephine  and 
the  Henry  Dennis^  formerly  of  American  register,  were  taking  seals 
in  Bering  Sea  under  the  Japanese  flag  and  that  former  residents  of 
the  United  States  were  large  owners  of  Japanese  sealing  vessels. 
With  respect  to  the  Josephine^  however,  he  further  reported  on  hear- 
say information  that  she  had  been  sold  for  debt  in  Hakodate  in  1894 
and  purchased  by  some  Japanese,  and  it  appeared  later  (report  of 
October  31,  1901)  that  she  was  one  of  the  six  Japanese  vessels  seized 
by  the  Russian  cruiser  Yakut  for  sealing  within  the  proscribed  lim- 
its around  the  Russian  rookeries.  Later  information  about  the 
Henry  Dennis  showed  that  she  was  at  that  time  one  of  the  Japanese 
sealing  fleet  under  a  Japanese  name,  but  that  she  was  American 
owned  was  not  shown.  (Report  of  Lieutenant-Commander  Marsh, 
naval  attache  at  Tokyo,  January  20,  1902,  inclosed  with  letter  of 
Minister  Buck  of  same  date.) 

It  proved  to  be  true  that  five  vessels  of  the  Japanese  sealing  fleet 
had  engaged  in  pelagic  sealing  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Pribilof  Islands 
during  the  season  of  1901,  and  not  being  subject  to  the  Paris  award 
regulations  had  felt  free  to  disregard  them.  It  further  appeared 
that  some  Americans  and  Canadians  were  employed  on  these  ves- 
sels as  navigators  and  hunters.  Subsequent  inquiry  indicated  that 
on  a  number  of  Japanese  vessels  the  nominal  captain,  who  acted  as 
captain  in  port,  was  Japanese,  as  required  by  Japanese  law,  but  the 
actual  captain  at  sea  was  the  navigator,  who  was  either  a  Canadian 
or  American,  and  on  vessels  so  equipped  white  hunters  were  gener- 
ally shipped.  (Lieutenant-Commander  Marsh's  report,  i'/'z/ra.)  On 
this  subject  the  United  States  consul  at  Victoria,  British  Columbia, 
reported  March  5,  1906: 

"There  are  several  (not  over  twenty)  Victorians  now  employed 
as  hunters  and  'navigators'  (really  captains)  on  Japanese  sealing 
schooners." 

With  respect  to  American  ownership  it  was  reported  that  two 
Americans  were  the  principal  owners  of  the  Japanese  sealing  fleet. 
Their  names  were  given  as  McLaughlin  and  King — the  former  a 
naturalized  Japanese  subject  residing. at  Yokohama,  and  the  latter 
an  American  citizen  residing  at  Hakodate,  having  a  Japanese  wife 
in  whose  name  two  schooners  owned  by  him  were  registered.  (Re- 
port of  U.    S.   consul   at  Victoria,    B.    C,    October   24,    1901.)      On 


97 

further  investigation  it  was  reported  that  these  two  men,  whose  full 
names  were  given  as  J.  M.  Laffin  and  E.  J.  King,  the  latter  being  in 
a  way  the  agent  of  the  former,  were  interested  on  their  own  account 
in  three  vessels,  the  Sci-toki/,  Sei-fu,  and  To-ro  Martt,  which  vessels 
were  not  used  in  the  award  area.  Their  interest  in  the  sealing  busi- 
ness generally  was  as  commission  merchants  or  purchasers  of  the 
catch,  and  in  that  way.  and  by  advancing  monev  to  the  sealers  for 
their  outfit  and  supplies,  they  practically  controlled  the  whole  seal- 
ing business.  (Report  of  Lieutenant-Commander  Marsh,  July  i6, 
1902.) 

While  these  investigations  were  in  progress  the  several  questions 
involved  were  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Japanese  Government. 
On  November  21,  1901,  the  United  States  minister  at  Tokyo,  Mr. 
Buck,  was  instructed  by  the  State  Department  to — 

"strongly  urge  upon  the  Japanese  Government  its  friendly  action 
in  requiring  Japanese  subjects  to  observe  the  same  regulations  as 
imposed  by  the  Paris  award,  which  operate  to  restrain  American 
citizens  and  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  and  to  end,  if  possible, 
the  practice  of  American  citizens  sealing  under  cover  of  the  Japa- 
nese flag." 

In  compliance  with  these  instructions  the  situation  as  reported 
was  called  by  him  to  the  attention  of  the  Japanese  Government  on 
December  26,  1901.  No  response  was  made.  On  April  14,  1902, 
Mr.  Buck  again  wrote  to  the  Japanese  Government  and  urged  prompt 
action  in  view  of  the  near  approach  of  the  sealing  season.  At  the 
same  time  he  pointed  out  that  Japanese  sealing  operations  in  the  last 
season  on  the  eastern  side  of  Bering  Sea  were  so  insignificant  as  to 
have  brought  little  profit — probably  a  loss — so  that  the  adoption  of 
the  proposed  restrictions  would  involve  little  if  any  loss  to  Japanese 
subjects.      (Letter  of  April  14,   1902,  Mr.  Buck  to  Mr.  Hay.) 

On  June  7,  1902,  the  Japanese  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  wrote 
in  answer,  stating  that  considerable  time  had  necessarily  been  con- 
sumed in  making  an  investigation  through  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture and  Commerce,  to  which  the  matter  had  been  referred.  He 
stated  further  that  this  investigation  had  not  disclosed  among  the 
vessels  licensed  by  the  Imperial  Government  to  engage  in  sealing 
and  otter  hunting  the  existence — 

"of  any  vessel  which  could  reasonably  be  regarded  as  having  nomi- 
nally been  transferred  to  Japanese  register  while  actually  remaining 
under  the  command  of  the  United  States  citizens." 

It  was  further  stated  that  great  caution  has  been  and  will  he  exer- 
cised to  prevent  the  issuing  of  licenses  to  American  scaling  vessels 
nominally  transferred  to  Japanese  register  but  actually  in  the  employ 


98 

of  and  under  the  command  of  United  States  citizens.  In  this  cor- 
respondence no  reference  is  made  to  the  use  of  the  Japanese  flag  by 
Canadians. 

In  reply  to  the  request  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  that  the 
Imperial  Government  take  appropriate  steps  so  that  Japanese  sub- 
jects, in  taking  seals,  may  be  required  to  observe  the  same  regula- 
tions, imposed  by  the  Paris  award,  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs 
called  attention  to  the  well-known  attitude  of  his  Government  on 
the  subject  and  stated  that — 

"From  the  correspondence  which  has  passed  between  your  lega- 
tion and  this  Department  and  between  His  Imperial  Majesty's 
legation  in  Washington  and  the  Department  of  State  in  1893  and 
1894,  as  well  as  from  the  declarations  made  by  the  Japanese  dele- 
gates in  the  International  Fur  Seal  Conference  of  1897  in  which  the 
United  States,  Russia,  and  Japan  participated,  it  will  be  seen  that 
Japan  has  always  expressed  her  readiness,  under  certain  conditions, 
to  become  a  party  to  an  international  agreement  or  regulations  for 
the  protection  of  the  fur  seals.  The  conditions  which  Japan  deems 
essential  for  the  protection  of  her  legitimate  interests  are  already 
known  to  your  excellency's  Government.  An  international  agree- 
ment on  the  basis  of  the  mutual  interests  involved  having  unfortu- 
nately not  been  arrived  at,  the  Imperial  Government  find  themselves 
unable,  in  the  absence  of  some  reciprocal  arrangement,  to  take  leg- 
islative measures  to  make  the  regulations  imposed  by  the  Paris 
award  of  1893  operative  upon  Japanese  subjects  and  vessels.  Nev- 
ertheless, I  am  happy  to  assure  your  excellency  that  the  Imperial 
Government  will  be  prepared  to  consider  favorably  any  scheme  of 
international  character  which  will  afford  effectual  protection  to  fur- 
seal  life  in  Bering  Sea  and  the  adjacent  waters. "  (Inclosure  in  letter 
of  June  10,  1902,  Mr.  Buck  to  Mr.  Hay.) 

THE  RUSSIAN  SEALING  INDUSTRY. 
Russian  seal  rookeries. 

The  principal  rookeries  of  the  Russian  herd  are  found  on  the  Com- 
mander Islands,  consisting  of  Bering  and  Copper  islands,  and  on 
Robben  Island,  which  is  now  a  Japanese  possession. 

In  187 1  the  Russian  Government  leased  the  trading  and  sealing 
rights  on  these  islands  to  the  firm  of  Hutchinson.  Kohl,  Philippeus 
&  Co.  for  a  period  of  twenty  years  on  practically  the  same  condi- 
tions upon  which  the  Alaskan  Commercial  Company  leased  the 
Pribilof  Islands  from  the  United  States.  The  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  firm  were  also  members  of  a  San  Francisco  firm  which  had 
already  acquired  extensive  property  and  trading  rights  in  Alaska. 
In  order  to  obtain  a  Tease  from  the  Russian  authorities  it  was  neces- 
sary to  have  at  least  one  member  of  the  firm  Russian,  and  Mr.  Phil- 
ippeus, a  Russian,  was  given  a  large  interest  in   the  firm  for  the  use 


99 

of  his  name.  The  Russian  law  was  thus  complied  with  and  the 
firm  was  nominally  Russian,  but  practically  American,  and  their 
vessels  were  American  property,  and  during  the  twenty-year  period 
of  its  lease  this  firm,  with  headquarters  in  San  Francisco,  managed 
the  seal  fisheries  on  the  Russian  islands. 

Upon  the  expiration  of  this  lease  in  February,  1891,  'a  new  lease 
was  awarded  to  a  Russian  compan}',  whose  name  officially  rendered 
in  English  was  "The  Russian  Sealskin  Company."  This  new  lease 
by  its  terms  was  to  expire  on  February  19,  1901.  (Fur  Seal  Inves- 
tigations,  1896-97,  pt.  4,  pp.   15-190.) 

In  February,  1901,  a  new  lease  was  made,  the  terms  of  which 
have  not  been  reported. 

The  United  States  consul  at  St.  Petersburg  in  December,  1901, 
reported  that  the  "  farming  out"  of  the  seal  hunting  on  these  islands 
was  about  to  take  place,  and  in  this  connection  he  inclosed  a  clip- 
ping from  the  London  Daily  Mail  (December,  1901)  from  which  the 
following  is  quoted: 

"  It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  the  farming  out  of  this  Crown 
property  will  bring  in  the  price  it  used  to,  since  the  enormous 
destruction  of  the  last  ten  years  has  terribly  decreased  the  catch. 

"The  following  figures  issued  by  the  governor  of  East  Siberia 
are  significant : 

"In  1890  the  number  caught  on  the  Commander  Islands  was 
54,591;  in  1892  only  30,000  were  caught;  in  1894  only  25,000;  in 
1898  only  2,925;   and  in  1899  only  1,000. 

"These  figures  show  that  the  time  is  approaching  when  this 
magnificently  furred  animal  will  be  almost  extinct  in  this  region." 

It  does  not  appear  on  what  authority  these  figures  are  based  and 
they  can  not  be  considered  as  reliable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  at  the 
auction  sales  of  seal  skins  in  London  in  1898  and  1899  over  9,000 
skins  were  sold  in  each  year  as  skins  taken  from  the  Russian  islands. 

The  size  of  the  Commander  Islands  herd  at  present  or  in  the  past 
can  not  be  accurately  given.  It  is  reported  that  the  flatness  of  the 
islands  makes  it  practically  impossible  to  count  the  seals  on  the  rook- 
eries, and  no  reliable  census  has  been  taken.  The  number  has  been 
roughly  arrived  at,  however,  by  assuming  that  its  size  each  year 
bears  approximately  the  same  relation  to  the  number  killed  on  the 
islands  annually  as  the  Pribilof  Islands  herd  bears  to  the  number 
killed  there.  On  this  basis  the  herd  at  its  best,  when  50,000  skins 
were  taken  annually,  was  approximately  half  the  size  of  tlic  i*nl)i- 
lof  Islands  herd  when  100,000  skins  were  annually  taken  there. 

There  are  certain  differences  in  conditions,  however,  which  make 
any  such  comparison  of  doulUful  value.  This  licrd  is  iiractically 
unprotected  against  pelagic  sealers,  for  there  is  no  close  season  and 


lOO 


no  prohibition  against  the  use  of  firearms,  as  in  the  Paris  award 
area,  and  the  feeding  grounds  for  this  herd  are  beyond  the  area 
now  protected  by  the  Anglo-Russian  agreement  of  1893.  (Fur  Seal 
Investigations,  1896-97,  pt.  4,  pp.  112,  194,  221,  227,  231.) 

The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  fur-seal  skins  shipped 
from  the  Commander  Islands  and  Robben  Island  from  1871  to  1897, 
inclusive: 


Year. 


871. 
872. 

873- 

874. 
875- 
876. 
877. 
878. 
879. 


885. 


895- 


Total . 


'Bering 
Island. 


16 


i392 
i044 
,406 
,712 
,3S8 
1 192 
,130 
,572 
,  i6o 
,078 


18,512 
13,480 
21,384 
20 , 966 
24,555 


590 
992 
165 
526 
,301 
,026 


397,958 


Copper 
Island. 


3,658 
14,964 
14,661 
15,480 
20,440 
15,074 
11,392 
20,070 
25,166 
30,014 

23,237 
22,002 
13,170 
28 , 060 
20,771 
30,036 
25,049 
20 , go6 
29,076 
32,328 
18,065 
14,654 
17,294 
13,122 
6,893 
7,171 
6,309 


499 , 062 


Robben 
Island. 


2,694 
2,414 
3,127 
1,528 
2,949 
3,140 
4,002 

3,330 
4,207 
4,106 
2,049 
3,819 


1,456 
540 


1.532 
1,000 
1,300 


45,514 


Total. 


3,658 
29,356 
30,399 
31,300 
36,279 
26,960 
21,533 
31,340 
42,740 
48,504 
43,522 
44,620 
28,699 
53,263 
43,575 
54,. 591 
46,347 
47,362 
52,859 
53,780 
36,905 
31,244 
32,818 
27,287 
17,719 
14,741 
",549 


942,534 


Note. — To  this  table  should  be  added  2,568  skins  taken  from  vessels  seized  within  Russian  terri- 
torial waters  in  1891  and  1892.  The  total  number  of  skins,  therefore,  shipped  from  the  Russian  seal 
islands  from  1871  to  1897,  inclusive,  is  945,102.  The  figures  for  1897  are  taken  from  Stejneger's  Re- 
port, Treasury  Department  publication,  1897. 

As  appears  from  the  above  statement  the  lessees  refrained  from 
taking  any  skins  on  Robben  Island  during  the  years  1871,  1872, 
1886  to  1889,  inclusive,  and  1892.  This  was  largely  due  to  the  fact 
that  at  intervals  the  rookeries  on  this  island  had  been  extensively 
raided,  and  in  order  to  save  the  herd  it  was  necessary  to  altogether 
suspend  the  killing  on  land. 

The  number  of  seals  reported  to  have  been  killed  illegally  by  the 
raiders  on  Robben  Island  between  1878  and  1895  amounts  to  at 
least  53,000  seals  of  both  sexes.  These  figures  are  entirely  apart 
from  the  number  of  seals  taken  by  pelagic  sealing.  (Fur  Seal  In- 
vestigations, 1896-97,  pt.  4,  pp.  127,  172.) 


lOI 

The  number  of  skins  sold  in  London  annually  since  1897  as  Cop- 
per Island  skins  are  reported  in  the  sales  reports  of  Lampson  & 
Co.,  through  whom  all  sales  were  made,  as  follows: 

1S9S g,  4S7 

1S99 9,  7S6 

1900 13.237 

1901 II, 2gS 

1902  7,  733 

1903 7.  720 

1904 S,  315 

1905 9,  000 

Pelagic  catch. 

Russian  subjects  are  prohibited  by  law  from  engaging  in  pelagic 
sealing.  Prior  to  1891  Canadian  and  American  vessels  had  visited 
and  raided  the  Russian  seal  islands  from  time  to  time,  but  no  pelagic 
sealing  had  regularh^  been  done  in  those  waters  up  to  that  time. 
In  1891,  however,  the  eastern  part  of  Bering  Sea  was  closed  to 
the  American  and  Canadian  sealers  by  the  modus  "vivendi  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  in  that  year  several  and  in  the 
following  years  a  large  number  of  the  pelagic-sealing  fleet  visited 
the  Asiatic  side  of  the  Bering  Sea  and  engaged  in  pelagic  sealing 
there.  In  1895  the  Japanese  pelagic  sealers  first  appeared  in  those 
waters. 

In  consequence  of  this  invasion  by  the  pelagic  sealers  an  agree- 
ment was  entered  into  in  May,  1893,  between  the  Russian  and  Brit- 
ish Governments  prohibiting  seal  killing — 

"  within  a  zone  of  10  marine  miles  on  all  the  Russian  coast  of  Ber- 
ing Sea  and  the  North  Pacific  Ocean,  as  well  as  within  a  zone  of  30 
marine  miles  around  the  Komandorsky  Islands  and  Tulenew  (Rob- 
ben)  Island.'" 

The  agreement  also  limited  to  30,000  the  number  of  seals  which 
might  be  killed  annually  on  the  Russian  islands.  A  similar  agree- 
ment was  entered  into  the  following  year  between  the  United  States 
and  Russia.  These  agreements  were  extended  from  time  to  time, 
the  agreement  with  the  United  States  being  finally  superseded  by 
the  act  of  Congress  approved  December  29,  1897,  prohibiting  pelagic 
sealing  in  those  waters  and  the  agreement  with  Great  Britain  being 
still  in  force. 

The  catch  in  those  waters  from  1891  to  1897,  inclusive,  is  stated 
as  follows  in  the  Fur  Seal  Investigations,  part  4,  page  202  (see  also 
statistical  tables  prepared  by  the  Treasury  Department  in  1897): 


I02 


Russian  catch. 


1892  , 
1893, 


189s 


1897. 


IQOO' 
I9OI* 
1902* 
1903* 
1904* 
1905* 


Total. 


Seals  taken  by  vessels  sailing  from- 


United 
States. 


1,816 

4.450 

604 

1,786 

766 

272 


Canada. 


6,616 

17,222 

12,052 

7,688 

6,281 

1,306 

1,382 

50 

699 

208 

3.397 

1.340 

1,910 

1,790 

1,972 


Japan. 


1,087 

1,506 

833 


3.495 
+  9.749 
t 7.906 


Japan 

(foreign 

flag). 


Total. 


8,432 

21,672 

12,656 

9,474 

8.134 

3.084 

2.865 

SO 

699 

208 

3,397 

1,340 

5. 40s 

11.539 

9.878 


98,833 


*  Taken  from  consular  reports  and  official  returns  from  British  Government. 

t  Four  thousand  si.\  hundred  and  fifty-four  of  these  were  taken  in  a  raid  on  Robben  Island. 

J  Five  thousand  five  hundred  of  these  were  taken  in  a  raid  on  Copper  Island. 


SEALING  INDUSTRY  IN  SOUTHERN  SEAS. 

The  sealing  interests  in  South  American  waters  and  among  the 
islands  in  the  Southern  Seas  have  an  important  bearing  on  the 
Alaskan  fur-seal  question  and  must  necessarily  be  considered  in 
connection  with  any  permanent  settlement  of  that  question. 

The  relation  of  these  interests  to  that  question  is  twofold.  In 
the  first  place  the  South  American  countries  which  have  within  their 
jurisdiction  breeding  grounds  for  the  fur  seal  stand  in  relatively  the 
same  position  with  reference  to  the  sealing  question  generally  that 
Russia  occupies.  Their  seals  in  recent  years  have  been  attacked  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  Russian  seals  by  the  sealing  vessels  of  the 
Victoria  Commercial  Company,  which  now  sends  two  or  three  ves- 
sels annually  to  engage  in  pelagic  sealing  in  southern  waters.  Con- 
siderable success  has  attended  this  new  departure  by  the  sealers, 
thereby  contributing  materially  to  the  prosperity  of  the  sealing 
company.  In  1903  a  catch  of  1,794  seals  at  Cape  Horn  enabled  the 
sealing  company  to  pay  an  otherwise  unearned  dividend  which  was 
the  first  and  with  one  exception  the  only  dividend  ever  declared  by 
that  company. 

In  the  second  place,  the  ci'tizens  of  the  South  American  countries 
are  as  much  at  liberty  as  the  Japanese  to  engage  in  pelagic  sealing 
in  Bering  Sea  and  such  sealing,  if  carried  on  there,  would  not  be 
subject  to   the   restrictions   of  the   Paris  award   regulations,   which 


I03 

apply  only  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  respectively  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain.  Moreover,  the  cooperation  of  the  South 
American  countries  is  necessary  to  prevent  the  use  of  their  flags  as  a 
cover  for  sealing  operations  in  Bering  Sea  by  the  citizens  or  subjects 
of  other  countries. 

Historical  revieiv. 

The  subject  of  the  fur  seals  and  sealing  in  the  Southern  Seas  up 
to  the  year  1892  is  presented  in  affidavits  and  reports  in  the  records 
of  the  Fur  Seal  Arbitration  Proceedings  at  Paris,  from  which  the  fol- 
lowing statement,  showing  briefly  the  situation,  has  been  prepared: 

At  the  beginning  of  the  last  century  fur  seals  existed  in  great 
numbers  in  southern  waters.  The  principal  rookeries  were  located 
on  small  islands  lying  near  the  southern  coasts  of  South  America, 
South  Africa,  Australia,  New  Zealand,  and  in  the  Antarctic  Seas. 
Seal  hunting  in  those  localities  was  actively  engaged  in  as  early  as 
1780,  and  the  method  pursued  was  to  raid  the  breeding  grounds  and 
kill  male  and  female  seals  indiscriminately.  This,  process  speedily 
exhausted  the  different  rookeries,  and  by  the  year  1830  it  was  re- 
ported that  all  the  known  sealing  grounds  were  so  depleted  that 
new  grounds  must  be  discovered.  The  total  number  killed  during 
this  period  is  not  known,  but  it  is  stated  that  actual  records  show  a 
total  of  at  least  16,000,000  skins.  From  that  time  on  the  only  con- 
stant sources  of  supply  of  any  importance  were  the  rookeries  on  the 
Falkland  Islands  (until  1870),  Lobos  Island,  and  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  all  of  which  had  been  taken  under 
governmental  protection  to  some  extent.  The  Australian  grounds 
supplied  a  small  number  with  some  regularity,  and  casual  hunters 
occasionally  made  a  killing  on  some  of  the  old  rookeries  where  a 
remnant  of  the  herd  was  left,  and  in  later  years  pelagic  sealing  has 
been  carried  on  in  tlie  vicinity  of  Cape  Horn. 

The  Governments  which  have  established  sealing  regulations  are 
Uruguay,  Argentine  Republic,  Chile,  and  the  British  colonies  of 
Falkland  Islands,  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  Victoria,  New  Zealand,  and 
Tasmania.  The  rookeries  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Chile  and  the 
Argentine  Repul)lic  were  not  considered  of  any  commercial  impor- 
tance in  1892.  (Fur  Seal  Arbitration,  vol.  2,  p.  218;  App..  p. 
393;  vol.  3,  pp.  540,  542;  vol.  6,  pp.  209-216,  221,  267,  290;  vol.  8, 
p.  902.) 

.   Present  conditions. 

In  November,  1902,  the  United  States  consul  at  Victoria,  l>ritish 
Columbia,  reported  that  the  Victoria  Sealing  Company,  owning  the 
entire   Canarlian    sealing    fleet  with    the   exception    of   three  vessels, 


I04 

was  sending  a  number  of  schooners  to  hunt  in  southern  waters  dur- 
ing the  following  season.      He  says: 

"For  this  purpose  they  are  selecting  their  best  schooners  and 
most  trusted  masters.  Members  of  the  Victoria  Company  now  own 
some  of  the  vessels  and  are  interested  in  others  of  those  sailing 
from  Halifax  for  sealing  in  the  South  Atlantic.  The  sealing  grounds 
there  comprise  the  coast  of  Chile,  around  Cape  Horn,  and  the  coast 
of  the  Argentine  Republic.  The  principal  headquarters  of  the  Vic- 
toria sealers  there  will  be  at  Port  Stanley,  in  the  Falkland  Islands, 
and  at  Montevideo." 

On  January  28,  1903,  he  further  reported  that  there  were  ten  or 
twelve  other  small  schooners,  carrying  flags  of  different  nationali- 
ties, engaged  in  pelagic  sealing  in  that  vicinity,  and  that  the  Cana- 
dian schooners  had  been  very  successful  in  hunting  off  the  rookeries 
near  Sandy  Point,  Chile,  and  the  east  coast  of  the  Argentine  Re- 
public. From  this  it  would  appear  that  the  seal  herds  located  there 
had  thrived  under  the  protection  extended  by  these  Governments  to 
the  rookeries  under  their  control.  What  the  effect  of  the  pelagic 
sealing  has  been  upon  them  has  not  yet  been  reported. 

Lobos  Island,  situated  at  the  mouth  of  La  Plata  and  owned  by 
Uruguay,  has  yielded  regularly  an  average  of  about  14,000  skins 
annually  for  the  past  twenty  years  until  1903,  when  the  Canadian 
pelagic  sealers  began  an  attack  on  the  herd.  Since  then  the  num- 
ber taken  on  the  island  has  been,  in  round  numbers,  about  11,000  in 
1903,  8,000  in  1904,  and  2,000  in  1905. 

It  is  reported  by  the  Canadian  deputy  minister  of  marine  and 
fisheries  that  in  1904  the  Canadian  sealing  schooner  Agnes  G.  Donahoe 
had  been  seized  at  Montevideo  by  the  authorities  of  the  Uruguayan 
Government  for  illegal  sealing.  (See  also  Foreign  Relations,  1905, 
pp.  912-918.)  The  seizure  of  a  Chilean  vessel  there  has  been  recently 
reported  in  the  public  press. 

The  number  of  seals  taken  by  Canadian  sealers  in  southern 
waters  does  not  appear  further  than  that  in  1902  two  vessels  from 
'Victoria,  the  E.  B.  Marvin  and  the  Florence  M.  Smithy  took,  respec- 
tively, 2,474  and  3,321  skins,  or  5,795  in  all;  the  following  year, 
1903,  the  E.  B.  Marvin  took  1,794  skins  and  in  1904  the  same  vessel 
secured  2,349  skins  there.  It  has  further  been  reported  in  the  pub- 
lic press  (Colonist,  Victoria,  March  8,  1906)  that  "the  schooner 
Enterprise  was  recently  destroyed  by  fire  at  Rio  do  Sul,"  with  her 
catch  on  board,  and  that  the  schooner  Beatrice  L.  Corkian^  of  Victoria, 
had  reported  a  good  catch  there. 

It  was  subsequently  reported  by  the  United  States  consul  at  Vic- 
toria, British  Columbia  (May  8,  1906),  that  the  catches  by  Cana- 
dian-owned vessels  in  South  American  waters  during  the  season  of 
1905  were  as  follows: 


1^5 

Skins. 

Markland i,  025 

E.  B.  Marvin i,  iSo 

Edith  R.  Balcom 58S 

Baden  Powell 600 

Beatrice  L.  Corkum i,  27S 

The  last  three  of  these  schooners  sailed  from  Halifax,  Nova 
Scotia. 

A  table  marked  "E"  is  printed  in  the  appendix  at  page  115,  which 
shows  the  number  of  fur-seal  skins  from  all  sources  sold  annually  at 
the  London  sales  since  187 1,  and  the  localities  from  which  they  were 
taken. 

In  March,  1906,  the  Department  of  State  requested  a  report  from 
the  United  States  consular  representatives  at  the  several  South 
American  countries  having  local  sealing  interests,  giving  information 
on  the  following  points: 

"(i)  The  number  of  fur  seals'  annually  frequenting,  in  recent 
years,  the  seal  rookeries  under  the  control  of  the  respective  govern- 
ments and  the  location  of  seal  rookeries. 

"  (2)  The  local  laws  for  the  protection  of  fur  seals  and  regulating 
the  killing  of  seals  on  land  and  at  sea. 

"(3)  If  the  privilege  of  killing  on  land  is  leased  by  the  govern- 
ment, the  terms  of  such  lease  and  the  income,  if  any,  derived  by  the 
lessee  and  by  the  government. 

"(4)  The  number  of  seals  from  the  respective  herds  killed  annu- 
ally on  land  and  at  sea  under  governmental  regulations  or  otherwise. 

"  (5)  The  nationality  of  pelagic  sealers,  if  any,  preying  upon  such 
herd  and  the  time  and  places  of  hunting. 

"(6)  The  local  commercial  value  of  the  sealing  business  and  the 
number  of  persons  locally  employed. 

"(7)   The  market  to  which  the  skins  are  shipped." 

In  answer  to  this  request  reports  have  been  made  by  the  United 
States  consuls  at  Montevideo  and  at  Stanley,  Falkland  Islands,  which 
reports  are  printed  in  the  appendix  and  marked  "F"  and  "G,"  at 
pages  1 16  and  1 1  7. 


APPENDIX. 


107 


APPENDIX. 


'A." 


Complete  list  of  British  Columbia  sealitig  vessels,  i8g8. 


Age. 


I  I 

„f  ,  frlT^^    Of  equipment, 

nl.yHfn^'.n        additional,  Total  value 

chors  chains  '  --equired  for  of  vessel  and 

spa^s   anS  '    Bering  Sea,  equipment. 


rigging. 


including 
sails. 


Ada 

Ainoko 

Allie  I.  .\lger 

Amateur 

Annie  E.  Paint 

Arietis 

Aurora 

Beatrice 

Borealis 

C.  D.  Rand 

C.  G.  Cox* 

Carrie  C.  W 

City  of  San  Diego 

Diana 

Director 

Hatzic* 

Dora  Sieward 

Doris 

E.  B.  Marvin 

Enterprise  * 

Favorite 

Fawn 

Fisher  Maid 

F.  M.  Smith 

Geneva  

Ida  Etta 

Kate 

Kilmeny 

Libbie 

Mary  Ellen 

Mary  Taylor 

Mascot 

Mermaid 

Minnie 

Mountain  Chief... 

Ocean  Belle 

Oscar  and  Hattie.. 

Otto 

Ocean  Rover* 

Pachewallis 

Penelope 

Pioneer  


67 
82 
92 
51 
54 
87 
76 
98 
64 
123 
74 
80 
63 


99 

10 

07 

14 

73 

4 

58 

36 

18 

5 

93 

9 

69 

35 

43 

23 

40 

23 

8.S 

35 

SO 

9 

27 

21 

83 

15 

85 

14 

86 

9 

63 

2 

22 

4 

87 

15 

70 

II 

$11,446.00 

8,968.00 

9,322.00 
2,242.00 
9,676.00 
10,148.00 

5,074.00 

7,788.00 

5,664.00 

7,906.00 

9 , 8 1 1 . 40 

10,856.00 

6,018.00 

6,372.00 

10,266.00 

10,795.96 

1 1 ,  564 . 00 

7,552.00 

14,514.00 

11,644.71 

9,440.00 

7,434.00 

2 , 596 . 00 

11,682.00 

12,626.00 

8,614.00 

6,844.00 

2,124.00 

10,974.00 

8,142.00 

5,074.00 

4,720.00 

10,030.00 

5,900.00 

3 , 1 86 . 00 

9,794.00 

10,030.00 

10,148.00 

7,107.01 

2  ,  596 .  <V) 
10,266.00 
8,260.00 


$4.559-<» 
3,572.00 
3,713.00 
893.00 
3,854.00 
4,042.00 
2,021.00 
3,102.00 
2,?56.oo 
3,149.00 
3,951.88 
4,324.00 
2,397.00 
2,538.00 
4,089.00 
3.586.85 
4 , 606 . 00 
3,008.00 
5 , 78 I . 00 
3,109.68 
3,760.00 
2,961 .00 
I , 034 . 00 
4,653.00 
5 , 029 . 00 
3,431.00 
2,726.00 
846.00 
4,371.00 
3,243.00 

2,02I.OO 
I, 880. CO 
3,995.00 
2,350.00 
1 , 269 . 00 
3 , 901 . 00 

3,995-oo 
4,042.00 

3.384-54 
I ,034.00 
4 , 089 . 00 
3,290.00 


$16,005.00 
1 2 ,  540 . 00 
13,035.00 

3. 135-00 
13.530.00 
14,190.00 

7,095.00 
10,890.00 

7 , 920 . 00 
11,055.00 
13,763.28 
15,180.00 

8 , 4 1 5 . 00 

8,gio.oo 
14,355.00 
14,382.81 
16,170.00 
10,560.00 
20,295.00 
14,754-39 
13,200.00 
10,395.00 

3 , 630 . 00 
•6,335.00 
17,655.00 
12,045.00 

9,570.00 

2,970.00 
15,345.00 
11,385.00 

7,095.00 

6,600.00 
14,025.00 

8,250.00 

4.4S5-°o 
13,695.00 
14,025.00 
14, 190.00 
10, 49' -55 

3,630.00 
14.35500 
11,550.00 


109 


T  lO 


Complete  list  of  B7-itish  Cohtinhia  seali7ig  vessels,  i8g8 — Continued. 


No. 


Name. 


Ton- 
nage. 


Age. 


Present  value 
of  vessel,  in- 
cluding an- 
chors, chains, 
spars,  and 
rigging. 


Present  value 

of  equipment, 

additional, 

required  for 

Bering  Sea, 

including 

sails. 


Total  value 
of  vessel  and 
equipment. 


Sadie  Turpel  *... 

Saucy  Lass 

South  Bend 

Teresa 

Triumph 

Umbrina 

Venture 

Vera 

Victoria 

Walter  L.  Rich.. 

Zilla   May 

Viva 


70 
106 


$10,450.52 
4,956.00 
2 , 596 . 00 
8,260.00 
12,508.00 
I I , 682 . 00 
5 , 664 . 00 
7 , Q06 . 00 
8 , 024 . 00 

9,QI2.00 

7,788.00 
10,974.00 


$2, 


633-30 
974.00 
034.00 
290.00 
982.00 
653.00 
256.00 
149.00 

ig6.oo 
948.00 
102.00 
371.00 


Total i     3,713 


445 > 935 -60 


$13,083.82 
6 , 930 . 00 
3,630.00 
11,550.00 
17,490.00 
16,335.00 
7 , 920 . 00 
11,055.00 
11,220.00 
13,860.00 
10,890.00 
i5i345-oo 


620,380.85 


The  values  of  all  the  vessels  in  the  above  list,  excepting  the  five  marked  with  an 
asterisk,  thus  *,  viz,  C.  G.  Cox,  Hatzic,  Enterprise,  Ocean  Rover,  and  Sadie  Turpel, 
are  fixed  and  given  on  the  basis  of  |ii65  per  ton  as  the  average  value  of  pelagic 
sealers  and  equipment  without  provisions  or  sea  stores.  The  division  between  the 
value  of  the  vessel/^;-  se  and  the  equipment  is  made  by  Captain  Cox.  The  above 
sum  of  $620,380.85  is  submitted  as  the  present  actual  value  of  the  sealing  fleet  and 
equipments,  but,  as  stated  at  the  meeting  of  the  Commissioners,  a  further  sum  is 
claimed  on  behalf  of  the  sealers,  in  respect  of  their  being  compulsorily  deprived  of 
continuing  their  industry. 


MEMORANDUM  OF  REFERENCES. 

The  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  pelagic  fleet  of  the  United  States  Census  Bulle- 
tin No.  123  (1891)  places  the  value  per  ton,  including  outfit,  at  1160.54. 

See  also  British  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  fleet,  supposed  to  be  made  up  from 
the  report  of  the  British  Commissioner,  Gleadowe,  sent  to  British  Columbia  in 
1892,  to  be  found  in  United  States  version  Bering  Sea  Papers,  volume  8,  pages 
S46-863. 

See  also  vol.  8,  id.,  p.  919. 


I  1 1 


"B." 

[Captain  Thayer's  report.] 
British  Columbia  sealing  fleet  of  j8g8. 


No. 


Name. 


Ada 

Ainoko 

AUie  I.  Alger 

Arietis 

Beatrice 

Carrie  C.  W 

C.  D.  Rand 

City  of  San  Diego.. 

Diana 

Director 

Dora  Sieward 

Doris 

Enterprise 

Favorite 

Geneva 

Hatzic 

IdaEtta 

Libbie  

Mary  Ellen 

Mary  Taylor 

Mermaid 

Minnie 

Ocean  Belle 

Ocean  Rover 

Otto  

Penelope 

Saucy  Lass 

Teresa 

Umbrina 

Victoria 

Viva 

Walter  L.  Rich 

Zilla  May 


Total., 


Tonnage. 

Age. 

Value. 

Appro.ximate 
value  on  basis 
of  $ioo  per  ton 
for  new,  with  5 
per  cent  yearly 

depreciation. 

97 

18 

$i>5oo 

$2,910.00 

75 

7 

4. 500 

4,875.00 

79 

12 

3.500 

3.5SSOO 

86 

II 

3.500 

4,085.00 

66 

II 

3,000 

3.135-00 

92 

10 

4,000 

4,600.00 

67 

7 

4,000 

4.355-00 

SI 

17 

1,500 

1.637.50 

54 

9 

3.000 

2,970.00 

87 

8 

5,000 

S, 220. 00 

g8 

7 

6,000 

6,370.00 

64 

6 

4,000 

4,480.00 

74 

6 

5,000 

S, 180.00 

80 

30 

3,000 

2,000.00 

107 

14 

3.500 

4 , 280 . 00 

76 

16 

2,500 

2,660.00 

73 

4 

5.000 

5 , 840 . 00 

93 

9 

5,000 

5,115-00 

69 

35 

1,500 

1,725.00 

43 

23 

2,000 

1,075.00 

83 

35 

3.500 

2,150.00 

30 

9 

2,500 

2,750.00 

87 

IS 

4,000 

3,262.50 

63 

2 

6,000 

5,670.00 

86 

9 

4,000 

4*730.00 

82 

13 

3.500 

3,075.00 

42 

6 

3,000 

2,940.00 

70 

13 

2,000 

2,625.00 

"3 

10 

,3.000 

3,650.00 

68 

6 

S,ooo 

4,760.00 

92 

13 

2,500 

3,910.00 

84 

21 

2,000 

2,100.00 

66 

2 

5.500 

5,940.00 

2.519 

418 

119,500 

125,650.00 

'Hoy-e..— Pioneer  sailed  with  the  fleet,  but  had  not  returned  at  last  report. 

Average  age  of  33  vessels years...  12  to   23 

Average  price  per  ton  per  valuation $47-44 

Average  price  per  ton  per  approximation $49-  ^^ 


Vessels. 


Num-i 
ber. 


Tons. 


Value. 


Approximate 
value  on  basis 
of  $100  per  ton 
for  new,  with 

5  per  cent 
depreciation. 


Vessels  sealing  in  1898.... 
Vessels  not  scaling  in  18 

16  only  of  above 

Vessel  not  reported 


Total 


164,80) 


181,703 


112 


Vessels  thai  had  been  sealing  previous  to  i8g8,  but  not  out  that  season. 


No. 


Name. 


Amateur 

Annie  E.  Paint 

Aurora 

Borealis 

Carlotta  G.  Co.x 

E.  B.  Marvin 

Fawn 

Fisher   Maid 

Florence  M.  Smith. 

Kate 

Kilmeny 

Mascot 

Mountain  Chief 

Oscar  and  Hattie... 

Pachewallis 

Sadie  Turpel 

South  Bend 

Triumph 

Venture 

Vera 


Tonnage, 


Total. 


1. 13 


Age. 


Value. 


$3,000 
2,000 
2,500 
5,000 
5, 000 
3.S00 


Appro.ximate 
value  on  basis 
of  $100  per  ton 
for  new,  with  5 
per  cent  yearly 
depreciation. 


5,000 

1,000 

800 

740 


232 


3,000 
750 
4.500 
•  2,500 
3,000 


45.300 


57,055.00 


Average  age  of  20  vessels years...        iix% 

Valuation  per  ton  of  16  vessels,  1,138—90=1,048  tons $43.23 

Estimated  valuation  per  ton  of  20  vessels,  1,138  tons 51.36 

The  Fawn  and  Oscar  and  Hattie  have  had  sealing  accommodations  removed   and  have  been 
fitted  with  berths,  evidently  for  Klondike  passengers. 

ESTIMATE    OF    SEALING    OUTFIT    FOR    FLEET    OF    189S — 33    VESSELS. 

Ballast  for  33  vessels,  at  I50  each f  i,  650 

Chronometers  for  33  vessels,  at  $100  each 3,300 

Barometers,  marine  glasses,  charts,  etc.,  at  $50  each i,  650 

Extra  galley  for  30  vessels  with  Indian  hunters i,  500 

Medicine  chests,  at  $20  each 660 

Signal  guns,  at  f6o  each i,  gSo 

Knives  and  tools,  at  $25  each 825 

Flooring,  ballast,  and  building  extra  accommodations,  including 

salt  room,  etc.,  33  at  $250  each 8,  250 

Tankage,  extra  average  2,000  gallons  per  vessel  (one-half  wood  at  5 

cents,  33,000  gallons;  one-half  iron  at  10  cents,  33,000  gallons)...  4,950 
Sundry  equipments  of  galley  and  cabin,  spears,  gaffs,  and  small 

gear,  etc.,  33  vessels  at|;i30  each 4, 950 

Boat  outhts  :  *   ^   /   j 

Whole  number  of  boats  at  sea S4 

One  on  each  vessel  valued  with  hull 33 

Leaving  for  sealing  outfit 51 

51  boats,  with  masts  and  sails,  oars,  rowlocks,  water  breakers,  etc., 

at  $110  each 5.610 

Ammunition  boxes  for  S4  boats  and  324  canoes 615 

Compasses  and  fog  horns  for  84  boats  and  324  canoes  2,030 

Guns  (2  for  each  boat,  i  for  each  canoe,  and  50  spare),  544  at  I50...  27,  200 

Brass  shells  (100  each  gun),  54,400  at  5  cents 2,  720 


3S.  195 

Above  outfit  for  33  vessels  of  total  gross  tonnage  of  2,519  tons 67,910 

Average  cost  of  outfit  per  ton 26.95 


1 1 ;; 


C." 


Cdtiadian  sealing  fleet,  iSgS-igoj. 


Name. 


Vessels  of  P'ictoria  Sealing  Company. 

Ainoko 

Allie  I.  Alger 

Annie  E.  Paint 

Arietis 

Aurora 

Beatrice 

Borealis 

Casca  

C.  D.  Rand* 

C.  G.  Cox 

Carrie  C.  W 

City  of  San  Diego 

Diana 

Director 

Dora  Siewerd 

E.  B.  Marvin 

Favorite 

Fawn+ 

Florence  M.  Smith 

Geneva 

Ida  Etta 

HatzicJ 

Libbie 

Mary  Taylor 

Mermaid  § 

Ocean  Belle 

Ocean  Rover 

Oscar  and  Hattie 

Otto 

Penelope* 

Sadie  Turple 

Saucy  Lass 

Teresa  

Triumph* 

Vera 

Victoria 

Viva 

Walter  L.  Rich 

ZillaMay 

Ada 

Doris 

Mary  Ellen 

Mascot 

Venture 


Vessels  of  outside  ownershi/'. 

Enterprise 

Jessie 

Umbrina 


82 

Q2 
51 
54 
87 
98 
123 
80 
63 

99 
107 

73 
76 

y3 
43 
85 
83 
63 
85 
86 
87 
61 
42 
70 
106 
67 
68 
93 
84 
66 

97 
64 
6q 
40 


Sealing  voyages,  1898-1905. 


Year 
bulk. 


887 


887      X 
886      X 

X 

X 


892? 


892? 
892 


X      X 


♦  Lost,  1904. 


t  Lost,  1905. 


:i.oM, .. 


$Sold. 


•5  bfi 


114 

"D." 

Seal  island  and  pelagic  catch  and  average  price  per  skin,  with  revenue  to  Government 
from  tax  on  seal  skins,  from  i8jo  to  Jgoj,  inclusive. 


Year. 


1870  , 
1S71  . 


Pribilof  Island 
catch. 


Skins. 


1873 

1874 i      no 

187s i     106 


1876 , 

1877 


1879. 


1892 

189.3 


1895 


1900  . 

1901  . 

1902  . 

1903 . 

1904 
1905 


,960 

,819 
.177 

585 

460 

Q4.657 
84,310 
109,323 

110,411' 

105,718 
105,063 
812 
309 

434 
024 

521 

760 

.304 

1617 

28,059 

I 2 , 040 

7>5ii 

7.396 

16,270 

14,846 

30,654 

ig,20o 

§18,032 

1117,189 

22,114 

23,291 

22,346 

20,126 

11,726 

.853 


I13 


Average 
price.* 


$10.50 
11.20 
13.00 
13.10 
12.75 
8.75 
9-75 
9.80 
21.20 
22.25 
19-75 
13.60 
20.20 
12.75 
14.20 
17.10 
14.00 
19-50 
17.00 
36-50 
30.00 
30.00 
27.00 
20.50 
20.25 
17.00 
15-50 
16.00 
26.00 
32.00 
34.00 
32-50 
29.50 
37.00 
37.00 


Pelagic  catch. 


Skins.t 


16,911 

5,336 

5.229 

5,873 

5.033 

5.515 

5,210 

5,544 

8,557 

8,718 

10,382 

15,551 

16,557 

16,971 

23,040 

28,494 

30 , 628 

26,189 

29,858 

40,814 

59,568 

46,642 

30,812 

61,838 

56,291 

43,917 

24,321 

28,142 

34,64s 

35.315 

18,895 

11,472 

12,791 

12,922 

12,205 


Average 
price.* 


I2.40 
2.40 


8.50 
9.00 
5-25 


13.00 
14.00 
7.80 
5.10 
6.30 
6-75 
6.50 
7.00 
7.70 
7.80 
9-75 
15-25 
15-75 
17.00 
12.50 
8.75 
10.25 
S.oo 
6.50 
6.50 
10.25 
16.00 
15-25 
19-25 
18.50 
19-25 
27-35 


Revenue  to 
Govern- 
ment de- 
rived.$ 


$101,080.00 
322,863.38 
307,181. 12 
327,081.25 
317.494-75 
317,584.00 
291,155-50 
253.255-75 
317.447-50 
317,400.25 
317.594-50 
316,885.75 
317,295.25 
251,875.00 
317,400.25 
317,489.50 
317,452.75 
317,500.00 
317,500.00 
317,500.00 
214,673.88 

46,749-23 
23,972.60 
96,159.82 
163,916.97 
153.375-00 
306,750.00 
212,332.35 
184,377.20 
224,476.47 
229.755-75 
231 ,821.20 
286,133.40 
197,260.70 
134,233.80 
146,912.80 


*The  average  prices  obtained  in  London  for  skins  are  taken  from  Report  of  Hearings  before 
Ways  and  Means  Committee,  March  9  and  10,  1904. 

t  Figures  of  pelagic  catch  are  taken  from  vol.  i.  Report  of  Fur  Seal  Investigations,  page  222,  with 
the  exception  of  those  for  the  years  1898  to  1905,  both  inclusive,  which  are  taken  from  the  official 
British  returns.  They  do  not  agree  with  the  report  of  the  London  Trade  Sales,  which  shows  a  larger 
number  of  skins. 

:t  Statement  of  revenue  derived  taken  from  official  records  in  Treasury  Department. 

§  The  skins  taken  this  year  were  not  given  in  agent's  report.  The  number  here  given  is  the  com- 
pany's quota  actually  shipped. 

;  The  number  killed  in  1899  was  taken  from  a  letter  from  the  Department  of  Commerce  and 
Labor  to  the  State  Department,  dated  January  14,  1905. 

•[The  number  given  is  exclusive  of  the  fall  killing  for  1905,  which  can  not  be  ascertained  until 
igo6. 

The  foregoing  table  is  Exhibit  A,  inclosed  in  the  letter  of  January  7,  1906,  from 
the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 


115 

"E." 

Statement  showing  number  of  skins  sold  annually  by  Lampson  ^  Co.  at  the  London  sales, 
and  the  localities  from  which  they  'were  taken. 

[Prepared  from  the  sales  lists  of  Lampson  &  Co.,  March  14,  1906.] 


Year. 


Alaska. 


Copper 
Island. 


Northwest 
coast. 


Lobos 
Island. 


CapeHorn.J„-,Peo^jFa.k.-c. 


1S71 
1S72 
■873 
1S74 
i375 
1S76 
1S77 
[S78 
1879 
1S80 
iSSi 
1SS2 
18S3 
1884 
18S5 
1886 
1887 
1888 
i88q 
1S90 
1 891 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 
1S97 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1901 
1902. 
1903 
1904 
1905, 


Skins. 

104,899 
96,283 

103,724 
99,150 
W.634 
90,276 
75.410 
99,911 

100,036 

100,161 
99,921 

100, loo 
7S.QI4 
99.994 
99,874 
99.947 
99.949 

100,037 

100,031 
25.152 
13.494 
7,554 
7.500 
16,030 
15,002 
30,004 
20,762 
18,032 
i6 ,  804 
21,924 
22,672 
22,306 
19.378 
13,128 
14,368 


Skins. 


30,349 
34,479 
33.198 
25.380 
18,686 
28,215 
38,900 
45,209 
39.3" 
36,480 
26,67s 
48,929 
41,750 
54,584 
46 , 296 
47,411 
52,765 
90,427 
31.380 
32.832 
27,298 
17,721 
14.415 
13,727 
9,487 
9.786 
13.237 
11,298 
7.733 
7,720 
8,315 
9,000 


1,728 

40 

5.071 

2,224 

3,104 

772 

2,698 

14,609 

13.501 

15,887 

22,886 

8,704 

19.357 

10,148 

49.079 

39.419 

30,285 

39,884 

47.467 

63.733 

72,973 

106,368 

135,686 

102 , 460 

71.033 

40,280 

31,407 

42.857 

44.379 

31.476 

26,480 

26,511 

30,207 

25.319 


Skins. 


Skins. 


.353 
,066 
,301 
,295 
,86s 
.569 
,200 
,422 
,580 
,862 
049 
,831 
774 
205 
241 
634 
202 
624 

MS 
017 
172 
926 
422 
918 
116 
831 
376 
994 
349 
025 


2,171 

2,867 

4,662 

3.812 

3.627 

4.389 

6,386 

2, 131 

62 

1,888 

2,510 

3.451 

4,204 

6,908 

8,76s 

11.329 

16,063 

28,785 

22,495 

11,074 


2,306 
3,3°4 
1,969 
1,141 
1,528 

1,059 

2,767 

312 

136 

651 

1,131 

1,538 

1,282 

4,827 

7.803 

2.654 


456 


732 
130 


XoTE. — The  comparative  value  of  the  skins  from  these  several  sources  is  stated  to  be,  first,  the 
Pribilof  Islands  skins,  known  in  the  trade  as  Alaskan;  next,  the  Copper  Island  skins,  which  include 
all  the  Russian  islands  supply;  then  the  Northwest  coast  catch,  which  by  trade  custom  comprises  all 
the  pelagic  catch  in  the  North  Pacific  and  Bering  Sea;  after  that  the  Lobos  Island  skins,  followed  by 
those  from  Cape  Horn,  and  last  of  all  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  skins.  Those  technically  known  as 
South  Sea  skins  are  rare  and  valuable. 


ii6 


"F," 

Report  on  "  Seals  and  sealing  in  Uruguay  " 
[Transmitted  by  United  States  consul  at  Montevideo,  John  W.  O'Hara,  May  i6,  1906.] 

It  is  definitely  known  that  both  hair  and  fur  seals  have  been  taken  along  the 
coast  of  Uruguay  for  more  than  fifty  years,  but  the  local  people  have  taken  but 
little  interest  in  the  industry,  and  I  am  informed  that  no  calculation  has  ever  been 
made  as  to  the  number  of  fur  seals  annually  frequenting  the  seal  rookeries  under 
the  control  of  the  Government  of  Uruguay. 

The  seal  rookeries  are  chiefly  located  on  the  islands  of  Lobos  and  Balano  and 
along  the  eastern  coast  of  Uruguay,  the  principal  rookeries  being  situated  upon  the 
first-named  island.  These  rookeries  are  frequented  by  both  the  fur  seals  and 
the  hair  seals,  but  chiefly  by  the  latter. 

There  is  no  statutory  law  in  this  country  for  the  protection  of  seals  or  to  regu- 
late sealing.  The  Government  has  merely  issued  an  order  prohibiting  the  taking 
of  seals  along  the  coasts  of  the  country  or  upon  or  near  the  islands  adjacent  thereto, 
except  by  the  lessees  having  concessions  from  the  Government. 

The  privilege  of  killing  seals  upon  the  mainland  or  in  the  waters  or  islands 
adjacent  is  leased  by  the  Government  to  the  highest  bidder  at  public  auction,  and 
is  granted  for  a  period  of  eight  years.  Under  the  present  contract  the  Government 
receives  an  annual  sum  of  $46,300  as  rent  for  the  concession,  and  there  is,  in  addi- 
tion to  this  amount,  a  duty  of  19  cents  levied  by  the  Government  upon  each  skin 
exported,  and  an  additional  amount  of  40  cents  upon  each  seal  taken — a  municipal 
tax  levied  by  the  Departments  of  Maldonado  and  Rocha,  the  Departments  adjacent 
to  which  the  seals  are  taken,  and  to  which  the  islands  belong. 

The  number  of  seals  taken  within  the  past  ten  years  is  as  follows; 


Year. 


Fur  seals. 

Hair  seals. 

21,824 

2,341 

16,324 

2,967 

15,265 

2,432 

14,601 

3,035 

14,865 

3,964 

12,938 

3,33'^ 

16,386 

4,781 

11,084 

2,744 

8,336 
9,000 
3,019 

2,544 

2,635 

1900 

1901  

1902  

1903 

1004  

Pelagic  sealers 
1905 

Total 


143,632 


Until  a  little  more  than  a  year  ago  no  complaint  had  ever  been  made  of  pelagic 
sealers,  but  since  that  time  two  vessels  in  particular  have  been  taken,  charged  with 
taking  seals  from  the  rookeries  of  Uruguay  without  authority.  The  first  was  the 
Agnes  G.  Donahoe,  a  Canadian  vessel,  and  the  second  the  Eninia,  a  Chilean.  Both 
were  captured,  brought  into  port,  and  held  for  some  time,  the  Emma  being  still  in 
custody.  It  was  claimed  by  the  captured  sealers  that  they  had  taken  their  seals  on 
the  high  seas,  and  as  the  Uruguayan  Government  had  no  definite  penalty  prescribed 
for  the  punishment  of  pelagic  sealers  the  Agnes  G.  Donahoe  was  released.  It  is 
complained  by  the  concessionnaires  that  they  have  been  particularly  damaged  by 
the  pelagic  sealers  because  the  seals  alleged  to  have  been  illegally  taken  were  killed 
during  the  breeding  season,  and  that  therefore  a  permanent  injury  was  inflicted. 


117 

The  killing  season  extends,  according  to  the  Government  concessions,  from  the  15th 
of  May  until  the  15th  of  October  of  each  year.  The  concessionnaires  got  but  3,019 
fur  seals  during  the  year  1905,  on  account  of  the  raids  that  they  claim  were  made 
by  the  pelagic  sealers,  from  whom  were  captured  9,000  fur  seals,  found  on  board 
their  vessels. 

The  hair-seal  skins  have  a  very  small  value  and  are  usually  sold  locally  at 
something  less  than  a  dollar  each.  The  fur-seal  skins  are  all  exported,  there  being 
no  local  market  in  this  country  for  them.  The  lessees  employ  about  fifty  hands 
during  the  killing  season.  These  men  are  transferred  to  the  various  islands  and 
have  their  homes  on  the  mainland  in  the  vicinity  of  the  rookeries.  No  one  except 
those  actually  employed  is  permitted  by  the  Government  even  to  visit  or  approach 
the  islands  either  in  sealing  season  or  at  any  other  time.  This  is  one  of  the  stipu- 
lations of  the  concession. 

The  seal  skins  in  the  past  have  all  been  shipped  to  the  English  market,  and  are 
similar  in  quality  to  those  taken  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Falkland  Islands.  The  com- 
pany at  present  holding  the  exclusive  right  to  the  seals  in  Uruguayan  waters  is  the 
"  Uruguay  Lobos  Fishing  Company  (Limited),"  of  102  Victoria  street,  Westminster, 
London. 

The  Government  now  has  under  consideration  a  bill  recently  introduced  for  a 
law  for  the  protection  of  the  seal  fisheries  and  providing  a  punishment  for  pelagic 
sealing.  The  necessity  for  this  law  was  made  apparent  in  the  litigation  that  fol- 
lowed the  capture  of  the  Canadian  vessel,  the  Agnes  G.  Donahoe. 


"G." 

Report  on  "  Sealing  at  Falkland  Islands." 

[E.xtract  from  letter  of  Aug-ust  «o,  igo6,  from  H.  E.  W.  Grant,  Colonial  Secretary,  to  J.  E.   Rowen, 
United  States  consul  at  Stanley,  Falkland  Islands.] 

With  regard  to  the  sealing  interests,  I  am  to  inform  you  that  there  are  only 
four  small  fur-seal  rookeries  in  the  colony,  and  that  the  number  of  seal  skins 
exported  in  1905  was  151.  The  number  allowed  to  be  caught  is  strictly  limited. 
There  are  several  rookeries  of  hair  seal,  but  practically  no  hair  skins  are  exported. 
There  appears  to  be  no  present  market  for  this  article  in  England. 

No  fur-seal  skins  were  imported  in  1905  for  the  purpose  of  transshipment  or 
exportation,  owing  to  the  duty  of  10  shillings  on  each  skin.  The  duty  was  reduced 
in  May  last  to  i  shilling. 

I  am  to  inclose  for  your  information  a  copy  of  the  Seal  Fishery  Ordinance,  1899. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  tlie  last  date  stamped  below. 


iAA^N 


t^0,\Jt9 


Form  L9-40m-7,'56(C790s4)444 


T?iE  LIBStAKT 

UNIVER'^^* Y  OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


Ljcixjlorci 

PAMPHLET   BINDER 

i^ZIZ    Syrocuse,  N.  Y. 
^^^    Stockton,  Calif. 


t 


PLEASf   DO   NOT    REMOVE 
THIS    BOOK  CARDS 


X^tilBRARY^  I 


University  Research  Lib 


rary 


C 
X 


> 


I 


o 


